[macintologist]

I have a handful of gay friends, but they are "normal" in the sense that they aren't one of those weird transvestites. Today I was people-watching at the dining hall like I normally do and I was looking at.. what I thought was a girl. She had breasts, long hair, wore women's clothes and had that kind of figure.

But then I overheard it and it had a really low deep male voice and it completely grossed me out, I lost my appetite and literally felt like I might vomit. It was so disgusting.

Ok.. so it made me realize that I'm a total homophobe when it comes to weird transvestites and such. :

However, I completely support gay marriages, gay rights, and will always vote that way.

...iz ok?

[stupendousman]

You're buying into the propaganda first and foremost. "Homophobe" is a word pretty much made up to demonize those who recognize that odd sexual behaviors are not the norm. It has little to do with the normal use of the suffix "phobe" as it's application is seldom limited to just those who have an irrational "fear". It's used as a club to punish those with traditional moral values who often time have no "fear" of sexual difference, but simply do no agree with how individuals choose to act upon them.

That being said, is it wrong to dislike the the actions of the KKK but still support laws and the Constitution which allows groups like them to state their opinions and live privately as they like? Is that a contradiction?

[macintologist]

I guess what I'm really asking is if other people feel the same way as I do. Homosexuality grosses them out, but they support gay marriage and all that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

I guess what I'm really asking is if other people feel the same way as I do. Homosexuality grosses them out, but they support gay marriage and all that.

I guess I"m just the opposite. It doesn't "gross" me out, but I don't think that people should have special rights based on their sexual choices.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I guess I"m just the opposite. It doesn't "gross" me out, but I don't think that people should have special rights based on their sexual choices.

*Scratches head*

But considered that way, don't heterosexual couples have "special rights" based on their sexual "choices?"

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

*Scratches head*

But considered that way, don't heterosexual couples have "special rights" based on their sexual "choices?"

Sort of.

They actually have "special rights" based on the normal RESULTS of their sexual choices, which also requires special responsibilities. That's not the case with homosexual couples.

[SpaceMonkey]

All the talk of "special" in this thread is making me giggle.

[Chuckit]

Nothing contradictory at all. I'm grossed out by Ugg boots, but I don't think the style should be federally banned.

[dcmacdaddy]

Not at all. I am going to give you a personal example of how this seeming contradiction can be manifest, although my example might just turn this potential flame-fest into a full-on flame-inferno.

I am personally opposed to abortion (meaning if I got a woman pregnant I would not want her to have an abortion) yet at the same time I support abortion rights (a woman's right to choose, within reason, to terminate a pregnancy if she so desires).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Sort of.

They actually have "special rights" based on the normal RESULTS of their sexual choices, which also requires special responsibilities. That's not the case with homosexual couples.

Your supposition that heterosexuality is normal really bothers me. It implies that homosexuality is abnormal.

if you want to talk about relationships and normative behavior you might do better to talk about human's desires to join up in pair-bonds. Two individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union is a basic human behavior. Certainly, opposite-sex pair-bonds are the more common form of this behavior than same-sex pair-bonds but in no way would I suggest that one type of human pair-bond is more or less normal than another.

[hyteckit]

Watching two attractive ladies kissing turns me on.

Watching two guys kissing grosses me out.

So I guess it cancels out.

Watching two ugly people kissing grosses me out whether they are straight or gay.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your supposition that heterosexuality is normal really bothers me. It implies that homosexuality is abnormal.

if you want to talk about relationships and normative behavior you might do better to talk about human's desires to join up in pair-bonds. Two individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union is a basic human behavior. Certainly, opposite-sex pair-bonds are the more common form of this behavior than same-sex pair-bonds but in no way would I suggest that one type of human pair-bond is more or less normal than another.

I think you misread stupendousman's post. He didn't say they have special rights because their unions are normal; he said they have special rights due to the normal results of their unions. That is, marriage is intended to encourage people to procreate.

I still think it's a pretty flimsy argument on several levels — for one, allowing gays to adopt would be more useful than encouraging people to make more children while so many aren't cared for. Then there's the fact that we allow many other people (e.g. the elderly) to marry even though they're just as plainly incapable of having children as gays are.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I think you misread stupendousman's post. He didn't say they have special rights because their unions are normal; he said they have special rights due to the normal results of their unions. That is, marriage is intended to encourage people to procreate.

I still think it's a pretty flimsy argument on several levels — for one, allowing gays to adopt would be more useful than encouraging people to make more children while so many aren't cared for. Then there's the fact that we allow many other people (e.g. the elderly) to marry even though they're just as plainly incapable of having children as gays are.

Ahh, you are correct. I mis-read his post. I stand corrected.

Although you do make a good point about the right to marriage being based on the ability to procreate. You mentioned the elderly as a class of people who are allowed to marry even though they are unable to reproduce. I would offer up the biologically sterile who can get married even though they bring into a marriage an explicit inability to create offspring.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Your supposition that heterosexuality is normal really bothers me. It implies that homosexuality is abnormal.

ab⋅nor⋅mal –adjective
1. not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.

When the "normal, average, typical or usual" person finds themselves physically attracted to another person, that person is of the opposite sex. It is not "normal" (given that it only occurs in a small percentage of people) for people to be attracted to the same sex.

Technically, homosexuality IS abnormal. The problem is that people always want to equate "abnormal" with "wrong" (a moral judgement) or undesirable. It's clearly the case that "abnormal" can be an extremely good thing. I'd love to be abnormally smart or abnormally well endowned. Well...actually I DO LOVE IT.

if you want to talk about relationships and normative behavior you might do better to talk about human's desires to join up in pair-bonds. Two individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union is a basic human behavior.

True. I'm sure that's the case with both same and opposite sex attraction.

Certainly, opposite-sex pair-bonds are the more common form of this behavior than same-sex pair-bonds but in no way would I suggest that one type of human pair-bond is more or less normal than another.

See above.

I think that there has to be a compelling government interest in getting involved with personal relationships. I don't think "love" is enough. I do think though that the fact that the vast majority of opposite sex "individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union" end up reproducing - whether they originally planned to or not, provides a compelling reason for government involvement that isn't relevant to same-sex unions. It's the "inequality" in the unions that makes it so equal treatment is not a legal neccesity. Now, if people want to grant it equal status via legislation, I'm fine with that.

[Chuckit]

Do you really mean to suggest that the birth rate would drop precipitously if the government didn't offer marriage benefits to heterosexuals?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think that there has to be a compelling government interest in getting involved with personal relationships. I don't think "love" is enough. I do think though that the fact that the vast majority of opposite sex "individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union" end up reproducing - whether they originally planned to or not, provides a compelling reason for government involvement that isn't relevant to same-sex unions. It's the "inequality" in the unions that makes it so equal treatment is not a legal neccesity. Now, if people want to grant it equal status via legislation, I'm fine with that.

OK. What is it about the fact that "the vast majority of opposite sex 'individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union' end up reproducing" compels government to get involved? What is about the union of two people that have offspring that necessitates government involvement that the union of two people that do not have offspring does not necessitate? What is the compelling interest for government involvement in relationships that produce offspring that does not exist in relationships that do not produce offspring?

[I am not saying this is your argument, but merely hypothesizing one possible argument that could support such a stance as you take.]
If the "compelling interest for government involvement" in marriages is safety of the offspring produced by the marriage, isn't child safety a concern regardless of the nature of the pair-bond that raises the child? In other words, if someone were to argue that government needs to be involved in opposite-sex relationships moreso than same-sex relationships in order to ensure the safety of offspring likely to be produced in an opposite-sex relationship, isn't the fundamental concern there really the children and not the nature of the relationship between the care-givers of the children?

[besson3c]

stupdendousman: why is it that conservatives care deeply about some personal liberties, yet go out of their way to prevent others?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you really mean to suggest that the birth rate would drop precipitously if the government didn't offer marriage benefits to heterosexuals?

No. Reproduction will happen regardless of what the government does, and often times regardless of the original intent of the parties involved.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Although you do make a good point about the right to marriage being based on the ability to procreate. You mentioned the elderly as a class of people who are allowed to marry even though they are unable to reproduce. I would offer up the biologically sterile who can get married even though they bring into a marriage an explicit inability to create offspring.

This has been gone over before. The recognition of marriage is essentially a "affirmative action" taken by the government to try to ensure a stable family unit in situations where the norm is for reproduction. As with most affirmative actions, as long as the parties involved meet the most basic criteria of inclusion (which normally does not require extensive means testing) they are allowed into the group in question. This isn't unlike a wealthy African American student being able to take advantage of affirmative action programs while a poor white student would not be able to do the same. This is not without precedent.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

OK. What is it about the fact that "the vast majority of opposite sex 'individuals joining their lives together for long-term benefit of both members of the union' end up reproducing" compels government to get involved?

I'm guessing society values a system that affords the propagation of our species the easiest route to success. When people come together in the way you state, the norm is for reproduction. When reproduction occurs, responsibilities are incurred by the participants that might have to be otherwise absorbed by the state if the participants are not successful in fulfilling their responsibilities. I'm pretty sure it's in the government's interest to see to it that they do not have to absorb those responsibilities and that the parties in question have every tool at their disposal to do so themselves. This is pretty much common sense.

If the "compelling interest for government involvement" in marriages is safety of the offspring produced by the marriage, isn't child safety a concern regardless of the nature of the pair-bond that raises the child?

I think the question would be whether government should be providing affirmative action for arrangements that are not viewed as optimal. After the parental "pair-bonds" fail in their attempts to provide a blood related mother-father-child group as desired by society, what point is there to the affirmative action? The thing the government had been trying to encourage has already failed. That doesn't mean that other affirmative actions can't be put into place for the less than optimal arrangements. It's just not necessary to give the same incentives.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm guessing society values a system that affords the propagation of our species the easiest route to success. When people come together in the way you state, the norm is for reproduction. When reproduction occurs, responsibilities are incurred by the participants that might have to be otherwise absorbed by the state if the participants are not successful in fulfilling their responsibilities. I'm pretty sure it's in the government's interest to see to it that they do not have to absorb those responsibilities and that the parties in question have every tool at their disposal to do so themselves. This is pretty much common sense.

There is a lot of speculation in this reply. And what "responsibilities are incurred by the participants that might have to be otherwise absorbed by the state if the participants are not successful in fulfilling their responsibilities"? Obviously there is the responsibility to keep the child healthy, to not abandon it, to raise it to be knowledgeable of and compliant with the government's laws. But, these are responsibilities of the people raising children whether or not those children are their direct biological offspring. So, again I have to ask, if the concern is to have children raised in a specific way that proves to be most advantageous for society and for the children, why do laws have to be structured so as to be applicable to only one type of possible parental structure for children? Wouldn't it be "pretty much common sense" to have government make as its goal (via legislation) the optimal way to raise children and not simply the optimal way to raise children within one specific type of parental structure?

For centuries, if not millennia, children have been raised by their biological parents, by adopted or step-parents--Classical Rome had different terms for both biological parents versus what we would call step-parents--by members of their extended families (grandparents, aunts/uncles, sometimes older siblings) and yet the explanation you provide for how the law is structured to address the concerns of child-rearing apply to only one specific type of parental structure (mail-female pair bonds who are the biological parents of the child).

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think the question would be whether government should be providing affirmative action for arrangements that are not viewed as optimal. After the parental "pair-bonds" fail in their attempts to provide a blood related mother-father-child group as desired by society, what point is there to the affirmative action? The thing the government had been trying to encourage has already failed. That doesn't mean that other affirmative actions can't be put into place for the less than optimal arrangements. It's just not necessary to give the same incentives.

Again, your suggestion implies that the type of child-rearing that the government endorses is the concern here and not so much the benefits to the child of the type of rearing they get. And if the government regulates who can get married simply to ensure that there is a "blood related mother-father-child group" I don't want that to be the government's motivation. If the government is going to do something to encourage "optimal behavior" on the part of its citizens as it relates to child rearing, I want it to take action to ensure that all children are raised to be successful law-abiding citizens, regardless of the structure in which they are raised. And if encouraging "optimal behavior" in children is the goal of government regulation, then there is no necessity that children be raised in a "blood related mother-father-child group". Because, as I have said before, we have had centuries of successful child-rearing that does not conform to the "blood related mother-father-child group".

So, tell me again how government needs to endorse (through legislation) one specific type of potentially successful child-rearing arrangement as optimal while leaving out many other types of potentially successful child-rearing arrangements.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This has been gone over before. The recognition of marriage is essentially a "affirmative action" taken by the government to try to ensure a stable family unit in situations where the norm is for reproduction. As with most affirmative actions, as long as the parties involved meet the most basic criteria of inclusion (which normally does not require extensive means testing) they are allowed into the group in question. This isn't unlike a wealthy African American student being able to take advantage of affirmative action programs while a poor white student would not be able to do the same. This is not without precedent.

This doesn't make any sense. Your argument says that the government's affirmative actions in promoting a specific type of marriage arrangement "does not require extensive means testing if the parties involved meet the most basic criteria of inclusion". But for those groups that are allowed to marry even though they are in no way capable of producing offspring (the elderly and infertile) the "most basic criteria of inclusion" in the group becomes not their ability to produce offspring but merely the type of sexual organs they have as those are the same sexual organs used by people who do come together and reproduce. You seem to be suggesting that the government thinks that legislation providing affirmative action to penis-vagina "pair-bonds" is preferable even if such a pair-bond is not capable of reproducing. An old man and woman getting married forms a penis-vagina "pair-bond" explicitly without the ability to reproduce: What reason is there for the government to think that is an optimal arrangement that needs some sort of legislated affirmative action?

If, as you say, the government has an interest in "trying to ensure a stable family unit" I would like to see the laws related to marriage changed such that they would be applicable to only those unions that are specific to child-rearing. In other words, I would like to see the laws covering marriage changed such that infertile couples or elderly male-female couples should not be allowed to marry simply because they have the sex organs that might have allowed them, or at one time did allow them, to reproduce. If the reason for legislating who can get married revolves around child-rearing then I would like the laws related to marriage applicable only to those male-female couples that produce biological offspring. In other words, male-female "pair-bonds" would not be allowed to get married until after they reproduced and at that point marriage should become mandatory. In other words, people who come together and reproduce should be required to get married "to ensure a stable family unit" for the raising of the child.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

There is a lot of speculation in this reply.

Assumptions based on reasonable observations.

And what "responsibilities are incurred by the participants that might have to be otherwise absorbed by the state if the participants are not successful in fulfilling their responsibilities"? Obviously there is the responsibility to keep the child healthy, to not abandon it, to raise it to be knowledgeable of and compliant with the government's laws. But, these are responsibilities of the people raising children whether or not those children are their direct biological offspring.

If we aren't dealing with direct biological offspring, there are other affirmative actions and government involvement that occurs from direct funding for foster care to government intervention from social workers and/or lawyers if adoption is an option.

So, again I have to ask, if the concern is to have children raised in a specific way that proves to be most advantageous for society and for the children, why do laws have to be structured so as to be applicable to only one type of possible parental structure for children?

It's not. Again, there are other options available for people who can't or won't participate in the biological norm which will ease their burdens in regards to child rearing. Affirmative action though is used to ENCOURAGE something. I'm pretty sure most of society isn't interested in encouraging men and woman to act in ways that lessens the chance that their children will be raised directly by their biological parents.

For centuries, if not millennia, children have been raised by their biological parents, by adopted or step-parents--Classical Rome had different terms for both biological parents versus what we would call step-parents--by members of their extended families (grandparents, aunts/uncles, sometimes older siblings) and yet the explanation you provide for how the law is structured to address the concerns of child-rearing apply to only one specific type of parental structure (mail-female pair bonds who are the biological parents of the child).

Are we to base our society and structure on Rome? I think the one we have now is doing okay, especially when compared to the results of ancient Rome. As I'm sure you know though, adoption laws confer the same rights and responsibilities to the people the government gives custody to as their birth parents for the most part. If a man and a women want to give a child who is not their biological offspring a home which almost identically replicates that which normally occurs in nature and is the preferred societal model (the one which we give "marriage" affirmative action to), then there isn't all that much difference between the rights, affirmative actions and responsibilities.

I understand that there are less optimal arrangements that get made, but I think those should be discouraged unless there are absolutely no other options available. I think every effort should be made so children can be raised by their mother and father, and we shouldn't be providing "affirmative action" for people who do not wish to take part in the "norm".

Again, your suggestion implies that the type of child-rearing that the government endorses is the concern here and not so much the benefits to the child of the type of rearing they get. And if the government regulates who can get married simply to ensure that there is a "blood related mother-father-child group" I don't want that to be the government's motivation. If the government is going to do something to encourage "optimal behavior" on the part of its citizens as it relates to child rearing, I want it to take action to ensure that all children are raised to be successful law-abiding citizens, regardless of the structure in which they are raised.

They already do. Regardless of whether or not you raise your biological children, the government intercedes when it becomes clear that you aren't doing what you are supposed to in regards to ensuring that the children are being raised to be "law-abiding". CPS interacts with parents everyday to ensure that's the case regardless of structure.

And if encouraging "optimal behavior" in children...

Actually encouraging "optimal behavior" in adults, which will have an effect on the children.

So, tell me again how government needs to endorse (through legislation) one specific type of potentially successful child-rearing arrangement as optimal while leaving out many other types of potentially successful child-rearing arrangements.

It's not about what might be "potentially successful". You know with 100% assuredness that two men will not join together in a union where they will end up finding themselves reproducing with offspring. You can be assured that those two men do not need "affirmative actions" to encourage them to raise the children that would normally occur do the nature of their long-term relationship and not split up or end up shifting the burden of caring for their blood relations to the government. Same sex couples can't reproduce. I understand that some CHOOSE to take on the care of children, but that's a matter for adoption laws I believe, not marriage laws.

[NobleMatt]

ok.... gonna be honest... scan read all of the above cause it pretty long and couldnt face doing it one long go. But i never heard anyone question your views of gays... and hows you seem to see being gay and a transvestite/sexual the same thing. they are a whole different ball park, transvestite is wanting/believe you are something you not, they believe they should be women, and along with that in certain cases they believe they should act like women e.g. fancy men, there are transvestites who and married to the opposite sex, man and woman. being gay is just falling in love/being attracted to some one, regardless of their sex. its not trying to be something your not, its just natural.

So really theres nothing wrong with you what so ever, you have found your comfort zone, you are happy with people falling in love regardless of their gender, but are not compatible with people changing their gender to be something they are, or even just dressing that way. The latter of the 2 is not being homophobic because as i said before its a different ball park.

Im from the UK so cant really talk much about the political Prop 8 thing cause i dont know much about it, but we allowed same sex marriages some time ago and the only thing it changes is to outrage the hardcore christians. it was the right move, it should be looked at as an extinction of human/civil rights and not on a religious bases.

would love to here peoples comments back on the above, and sorry again if i have repeated anything

Matt

BTW: because it kind of is relevant to my opinion, no im not gay

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's not about what might be "potentially successful". You know with 100% assuredness that two men will not join together in a union where they will end up finding themselves reproducing with offspring. You can be assured that those two men do not need "affirmative actions" to encourage them to raise the children that would normally occur do the nature of their long-term relationship and not split up or end up shifting the burden of caring for their blood relations to the government. Same sex couples can't reproduce. I understand that some CHOOSE to take on the care of children, but that's a matter for adoption laws I believe, not marriage laws.

So your argument really is all about law preferring those unions with a biologic ability to reproduce whether or not they actually do reproduce. Well, I don't want marriage laws to be based on whether or not the partners in question can, may, or will reproduce together. I want marriage laws to be based on legal recognition of the partner's commitment to one another regardless of their desire to have children. As you said yourself, there are a whole host of other laws focused on the care of children so I see no reason why marriage laws have to be predicated on the possibility of the "pair-bond" producing offspring.

[besson3c]

What about all of the fertile, young hetero married couples that choose not to reproduce?

What year is this again?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about all of the fertile, young hetero married couples that choose not to reproduce?

According to stupendousman's logic they should be allowed to marry simply because they have the requisite sexual organs to reproduce.


His explanation/rationale for marriage laws being applicable only to those of the opposite sex really seems to be based on a perception of individuals defined by their genitalia. In his rationale for why governments limit marriage to opposite-sex couples it seems that having a penis-vagina combination is the only necessary perquisite for marriage whether or not that penis and vagina will ever come together to produce offspring.
(Sorry to be a bit clinical here but I am really surprised that arguments for keeping marriage laws only to opposite-sex couples boils down to genitalia.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

According to stupendousman's logic they should be allowed to marry simply because they have the requisite sexual organs to reproduce.


His explanation/rationale for marriage laws being applicable only to those of the opposite sex really seem to be based on a definition of individuals defined by their genitalia. In his rationale for why governments limit marriage to opposite-sex couples it seems that having a penis-vagina combination is the only necessary perquisite for marriage whether or not that penis and vagina will ever come together to produce offspring.
(Sorry to be a bit clinical here but I am really surprised that arguments for keeping marriage laws only to opposite-sex couples boils down to genitalia.)

I see it the same way. I kind of wish we could cut to the chase: the vast majority of people against gay marriage are against it because of their personal emotional issues with the concept, not some well-conceived rational argument. It is unfortunate that others are held hijack to their personal issues and gut feelings.

Then again, this is a common theme.

[dcmacdaddy]

If I understand correctly his argument, stupendousman thinks the logical pairings for couples to get married is based on genitalia simply because of the possibility that these couplings did, can, may come together and produce offspring.

Below is a brief chart I have drawn up outlining these possible pair bonds that stupendousman thinks are acceptable to be recognized as marriages. Does anyone else see the discrepancy in saying the justification for restricting marriage laws to pair-bonds that have the possibility to reproduce? There are four instances where couples are allowed to marry where they explicitly cannot or do not reproduce and only one instance where couples marry and do reproduce. Methinks the "it's for the sake of the children" argument is more than a bit suspect.

penis & vagina = OK (young fertile couple who want to have kids)
penis & vagina = OK (young fertile couple who do not want to have kids)
penis & vagina = OK (young infertile couple who want to have kids but can't)
penis & vagina = OK (young infertile couple who do not want to have kids and don't)
penis & vagina = OK (old infertile couple who can't have kids)

[besson3c]

What about lesbian artificial insemination? What about fertile hetero couples that really shouldn't be having kids because they would be horrible parents?

I bet we could come up with many more scenarios...

[macintologist]

This has gone off-topic. The original question is, Is it contradictory to be homophobic and pro gay rights? If not, how many of you feel this way?

[Dakar V]

I don't think it's any different than "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

This has gone off-topic. The original question is, Is it contradictory to be homophobic and pro gay rights? If not, how many of you feel this way?

It's not contradictory. Just because I support the right of people to torture themselves by listening to Radiohead, it doesn't mean I want it anywhere near my iTunes.

(I used Radiohead here because I don't give a toss if anyone's gay or not, as long as they don't start slurping their boyfriend's face in front of me. But then, I don't really want straight people slurping on each other in front of me either... especially ugly ones. However, I'm highly Radiohead intolerant.)

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about all of the fertile, young hetero married couples that choose not to reproduce?

At one point, I was part of a "young hetero married couple" that chose not to reproduce.

WHOOPS. It didn't work out that way. It often times doesn't. As I pointed out, the norm regardless of your intentions are for people involved in long-term opposite sex relationships is reproduction.

It's really impossible to segregate in this regard based on intent or assumed ability to meet more than just the basic criteria - things change (health, desire - accidents happen, etc.). That's why affirmative actions usually aren't means tested to a level above simply fulfilling the most basic criteria where you can eliminate the majority of those who would never be able to be a part of the group who you are trying to act affirmatively for.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, I don't want marriage laws to be based on whether or not the partners in question can, may, or will reproduce together. I want marriage laws to be based on legal recognition of the partner's commitment to one another regardless of their desire to have children.

I see a governmental interest in the helpless participants brought into the world to be society's next generation.

I see no governmental interest in endorsing or recognizing emotion. If that's all there is, there's really no need for the government to be providing any kind of affirmative action for it.

Me: The good of the future of society
You: Endorsing "love" which can be fleeting.

If you really think you can convince society that your priorities are of higher value, or equal to mine: GOOD LUCK!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What about lesbian artificial insemination?

Is it your argument that is something that society as a majority sees worthy of providing affirmative action to encourage?

I'm pretty confident I don't have to do much convincing for most people to agree with what I've outlined as worthy for action, given that the majority of Americans don't agree with the notion of "gay marriage" in the first place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is it your argument that is something that society as a majority sees worthy of providing affirmative action to encourage?

I'm pretty confident I don't have to do much convincing for most people to agree with what I've outlined as worthy for action, given that the majority of Americans don't agree with the notion of "gay marriage" in the first place.

That's not the argument though.

We're talking past each other. It sounds like you are making an argument based on historical precedent or something (although I'm not sure I understand what it is you are trying to say), while others are making a more fundamental and philosophical argument about men and women created equal, and a society based on equality. It's pretty simple: if we live in a society that values equal rights, not just preservation of the rights of large populations, in a society that is interested in advancing freedom, and a society where the separation of Church and State is taken seriously, wanting to ban gay marriage seems completely at odds with all of this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I see a governmental interest in the helpless participants brought into the world to be society's next generation.

I see no governmental interest in endorsing or recognizing emotion. If that's all there is, there's really no need for the government to be providing any kind of affirmative action for it.

Me: The good of the future of society
You: Endorsing "love" which can be fleeting.

If you really think you can convince society that your priorities are of higher value, or equal to mine: GOOD LUCK!

How does the future of our society depend upon reproduction? Is there a population shortage that I'm not aware of?

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I don't think it's any different than "I don't agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".

Why do conservatives have such a hard time seeing it this way?

I hate death metal music, doesn't mean I want to legislate it out of existence.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Well, I don't want marriage laws to be based on whether or not the partners in question can, may, or will reproduce together. I want marriage laws to be based on legal recognition of the partner's commitment to one another regardless of their desire to have children.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I see a governmental interest in the helpless participants brought into the world to be society's next generation.

I see no governmental interest in endorsing or recognizing emotion. If that's all there is, there's really no need for the government to be providing any kind of affirmative action for it.

Me: The good of the future of society
You: Endorsing "love" which can be fleeting.

If you really think you can convince society that your priorities are of higher value, or equal to mine: GOOD LUCK!

Who's talking about emotions here?!?

Where did you get the idea that when I say "I want marriage laws to be based on legal recognition of the partner's commitment to one another regardless of their desire to have children." that I am talking about "love" and feelings?

People who get married make a legal commitment to one another, a commitment that is recognized by the government with certain rights the government will enforce on behalf of the partners in the marriage (death/estate benefits, tax privileges, hospital visitation rights, property ownership). So, when I say "I want marriage laws to be based on legal recognition of the partner's commitment to one another regardless of their desire to have children" I am talking about having the government enforce those rights on behalf of the partners in a marriage even if the partners do not/can not produce offspring.

(Remember, all along you have been making the argument that the government should affirm opposite-sex relationships with legal recognition because of the likelihood these types of relationships will produce offspring. And what I am saying is that I want the government to affirm opposite-sex and same-sex relationships with legal recognition whether or not the partners in the relationship can or want to have children.)

My point being that I want the government to expand its definition of the types of relationships it will affirm such that the ability to produce offspring is NOT a criteria in deciding whether or not to affirm a relationship with legal recognition. I want the government to affirm relationships with legal recognition based on nothing more than "the partner's commitment to one another" (i.e.: two consenting adults who request from the government such recognition for their relationship). I want the government to provide legal recognition of and affirmation for a relationship based on nothing more than the expressed desire to have such recognition and the legal advantages that come along with such recognition (death/estate benefits, tax privileges, hospital visitation rights, property ownership).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is it your argument that is something that society as a majority sees worthy of providing affirmative action to encourage?

I would just like to point out that in the past month, MacNN conservatives have been arguing in favor of socialism, increased government spending and now affirmative action.

There must be something in the water.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I would just like to point out that in the past month, MacNN conservatives have been arguing in favor of socialism, increased government spending and now affirmative action.

There must be something in the water.

Yes, I have notice the same thing.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How does the future of our society depend upon reproduction? Is there a population shortage that I'm not aware of?

It doesn't depend on it. It simply happens. When it happens, it's not in society's best interest for the results of reproduction to be taken care of haphazardly. That's why we've got multitudes of federal agencies and programs devoted to child care and welfare. We have no similar federal agencies devoted to human love and desire.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It sounds like you are making an argument based on historical precedent or something...

Actually, undeniable scientific precedent. Biological in fact.

....(although I'm not sure I understand what it is you are trying to say), while others are making a more fundamental and philosophical argument about men and women created equal, and a society based on equality. It's pretty simple: if we live in a society that values equal rights, not just preservation of the rights of large populations, in a society that is interested in advancing freedom, and a society where the separation of Church and State is taken seriously, wanting to ban gay marriage seems completely at odds with all of this.

Again, we are dealing with unequal things and it has nothing to do with "Church and State". I've outlined how the two unions aren't the same in a substantial way and therefore not required to be treated equally, and the best people can do is try to find the rare exceptions to the rule which often times are only temporary exceptions at that.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

People who get married make a legal commitment to one another...

Normally, with the intention to reproduce, and eventually start a family.

Without that, their "commitment" is simply a statement about their emotions for one another. Though, I'm all for doing whatever we can to help people who don't want to get married to make whatever legal arrangements they wish regarding next of kin, etc. That's the case even for people who have platonic same or opposite sex life partners. The elderly with no surviving blood relatives, for instance.

So, when I say "I want marriage laws to be based on legal recognition of the partner's commitment to one another regardless of their desire to have children" I am talking about having the government enforce those rights on behalf of the partners in a marriage even if the partners do not/can not produce offspring.

Just as I said...you want the government to acknowledge, endorse and enforce your "love" (an emotion) for another person. I don't think there's a real societal interest in the government getting involved if emotion is all that's in play here. That's not the case with long-term unions between heterosexuals where the norm results in a HUGE societal interest.

You wish to reduce marriage down to an acknowledgement of emotion, when pretty much most of society recognizes it as the building block for the families that result from the normal reproduction that occurs when people DO decide to commit to one another long-term. You can commit to someone long-term without getting married, but often times reproduction does occur and marriage follows. Sure, people who don't plan to take part in reproduction or think they can't take part as well, but you are talking about the minority exception, not the rule. That isn't unlike wealthy black families whose children benefit from affirmative action programs while poor white families cannot simply because they fit into the category of people who generally can be thought to benefit from the affirmative action in question.

Remember, all along you have been making the argument that the government should affirm opposite-sex relationships with legal recognition because of the likelihood these types of relationships will produce offspring. And what I am saying is that I want the government to affirm opposite-sex and same-sex relationships with legal recognition whether or not the partners in the relationship can or want to have children.

There isn't the same societal interest in the government doing that as I've illustrated, so at this point they haven't. I understand your point and think that an argument can be made for doing so, but i don't think that it can logically said that it is based on inequality since we aren't dealing with things that have unequal societal interest. I don't buy the argument that endorsement of emotion is of the same societal interest as keeping blood related families intact to ensure our future generations have the best chance at success. If it's not of the same societal interest, then there is no requirement for it to be treated equally.

My point being that I want the government to expand its definition of the types of relationships it will affirm such that the ability to produce offspring is NOT a criteria in deciding whether or not to affirm a relationship with legal recognition. I want the government to affirm relationships with legal recognition based on nothing more than "the partner's commitment to one another" (i.e.: two consenting adults who request from the government such recognition for their relationship). I want the government to provide legal recognition of and affirmation for a relationship based on nothing more than the expressed desire to have such recognition and the legal advantages that come along with such recognition (death/estate benefits, tax privileges, hospital visitation rights, property ownership).

Acknowledging and enforcing your emotion based promises. I know.

[Chuckit]

I notice stupendousman is refusing to quantify how giving marriage benefits to a subset of couples benefits society. There's this repeated "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN" refrain, but no explanation of how excluding gays benefits children.

Again I say, if you're going to campaign against gay marriage, you should also be against elderly marriage. Those people are clearly perverting an institution that's meant to produce offspring!

And if you actually want to defend marriage, how about eliminating the right of straight people to divorce? No, none of the marriage crusaders will get behind that. Because despite accomplishing their stated goal much better than what they're doing, it would actually require some sacrifices from them.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Normally, with the intention to reproduce, and eventually start a family.

Without that, their "commitment" is simply a statement about their emotions for one another. Though, I'm all for doing whatever we can to help people who don't want to get married to make whatever legal arrangements they wish regarding next of kin, etc. That's the case even for people who have platonic same or opposite sex life partners. The elderly with no surviving blood relatives, for instance.



Just as I said...you want the government to acknowledge, endorse and enforce your "love" (an emotion) for another person. I don't think there's a real societal interest in the government getting involved if emotion is all that's in play here. That's not the case with long-term unions between heterosexuals where the norm results in a HUGE societal interest.

You wish to reduce marriage down to an acknowledgement of emotion, when pretty much most of society recognizes it as the building block for the families that result from the normal reproduction that occurs when people DO decide to commit to one another long-term. You can commit to someone long-term without getting married, but often times reproduction does occur and marriage follows. Sure, people who don't plan to take part in reproduction or think they can't take part as well, but you are talking about the minority exception, not the rule. That isn't unlike wealthy black families whose children benefit from affirmative action programs while poor white families cannot simply because they fit into the category of people who generally can be thought to benefit from the affirmative action in question.



There isn't the same societal interest in the government doing that as I've illustrated, so at this point they haven't. I understand your point and think that an argument can be made for doing so, but i don't think that it can logically said that it is based on inequality since we aren't dealing with things that have unequal societal interest. I don't buy the argument that endorsement of emotion is of the same societal interest as keeping blood related families intact to ensure our future generations have the best chance at success. If it's not of the same societal interest, then there is no requirement for it to be treated equally.



Acknowledging and enforcing your emotion based promises. I know.

I think I finally get it. You really don't think of marriage as anything other than a means for people to come together for the purposes of reproduction. I thought you were just being argumentative with your retorts about children but you really think the sole purpose of marriage is for reproductive reasons. Which is fine if you think that way, but that means I can't argue with you about legal rights outside of the context of reproduction if you don't consider them as a reason to get married. You can't possibly see how two people who want to come together could be concerned about property rights, or hospital visitation rights, or tax rights; All of those matters are concerns for people apart from any desire for producing offspring and apart from any concerns about "love".

We are arguing from two logically opposed positions* so there is no more need for me to participate in this debate with you anymore. Thanks, it's been civil and fun, if not frustrating.


*You think people come together in marriage for reproductive reasons only and I think they come together for reproductive reasons as well as other legal/property rights reasons.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you really mean to suggest that the birth rate would drop precipitously if the government didn't offer marriage benefits to heterosexuals?

Benefits? Surely you jest.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I notice stupendousman is refusing to quantify how giving marriage benefits to a subset of couples benefits society. There's this repeated "THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN" refrain, but no explanation of how excluding gays benefits children.

Replace "gays" with "white people" and see how that logic effects racial affirmative action arguments. How does excluding whites from the benefits of racial affirmative action benefit those less fortunate? The point is that the affirmative action is given to encourage a specific valued proposition. In the case of racial affirmative action, it's hiring racial minorities.

If you include whites, and employers get the same benefits whether they hire white people or black people, how is that going to encourage hiring minorities? If you include gay people, how is that going to encourage people who come together in a manner that would normally result in the production of offspring, to stay together. Affirmative actions give special status to desired behavior, while the less desirous behavior gets no such status. You are essentially asking why wouldn't just give this preferred status to EVERYONE, even when the people in question are clearly unable to meet the most basic class participation critieria. When you give it to everyone - even people who can't meet the most basic criteria (in this case opposite sex unions) it's no longer special.

Again I say, if you're going to campaign against gay marriage, you should also be against elderly marriage. Those people are clearly perverting an institution that's meant to produce offspring!

Using the same logic, if you where for racial affirmative action, you'd be required to have it means tested down to whether or not the person in question is clearly in need of extra help or special status above and beyond simply being part of a racial minority.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I think I finally get it. You really don't think of marriage as anything other than a means for people to come together for the purposes of reproduction.

Not at all. People are going to come together and reproduce regardless if the government recognizes the unions in question or not. People are going to have sex and end up reproducing. I guarantee you that if you did away with "marriage", people would still be making babies.

The thing is, it's in the government's interest to try to do what it can to keep those people together, raising the results of that reproduction due to the the negative societal implications if that doesn't happen. I can't really see another reason for government to interfere, since personal emotions don't really seem like a compelling state interest. Take away the norm of reproduction, all you have left is simple emotional attachment.

I thought you were just being argumentative with your retorts about children but you really think the sole purpose of marriage is for reproductive reasons.

No. I think it's the sole rational compelling interest the government has in personal relationships and emotion. I don't think doing otherwise is what our founding fathers intended.

You think people come together in marriage for reproductive reasons only and I think they come together for reproductive reasons as well as other legal/property rights reasons.

I think people come together because in the end, they want companionship and want to have sex. That would be the case regardless if there was government recognized "marriage". People would be making babies without it as well.

"Marriage" is the affirmative action given by the government (and traditionally the church) to try and encourage these people who are going to end up screwing and reproducing to do it in a way that best serves society. You do ABC, you get XYZ. You don't, you don't get XYZ. If EVERYONE gets XYZ simply because of how they feel emotionally, there's really no incentive to ensure that they do ABC. You're taking out the most compelling interest for government intercession and replacing it with something that the government really should have little interest in.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Using the same logic, if you where for racial affirmative action, you'd be required to have it means tested down to whether or not the person in question is clearly in need of extra help or special status above and beyond simply being part of a racial minority.

Absolutely!!!

If we are to support affirmative action (say in school admissions) then the recipient of the affirmative action must be someone who would not otherwise qualify. So, if you a rich black kid and a poor black kid with the same academic achievements on their application then the affirmative action should be used to help the poor black kid not the rich black kid.