[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This would only come as a shock to those who've been listening to unreasonable people slander people they disagree with as unreasonable.

"On gay marriage, Bill O'Reilly has flip-flopped. The gayest of all footwear."

- Stephen Colbert.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

"On gay marriage, Bill O'Reilly has flip-flopped. The gayest of all footwear."

- Stephen Colbert.

I love it, when someone finally agrees with them, after decades of arguing, they grab a hammer and crucify them. We wonder why our political system doesn't go anywhere?

[subego]

There's usually a correlation between the number of hammer blows and the level of contrition one displays for being wrong.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's usually a correlation between the number of hammer blows and the level of contrition one displays for being wrong.

An eye for an eye has led to both sides being blind.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

"On gay marriage, Bill O'Reilly has flip-flopped. The gayest of all footwear."

- Stephen Colbert.

Ahh yes, we mustn't forget the clown pundits who bring politics to the weary masses.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

An eye for an eye has led to both sides being blind.

And huge profits for monocle and patch makers.

[subego]

Arrrrrr!

[subego]

I actually thought the flip-flop joke was funny.

[The Final Dakar]

Scalia’s gay adoption claim: Even wronger than I thought

In other words, the official organization representing American sociologists went out of their way to provide the Supreme Court with their “consensus” opinion on the effect of same-sex parents on children. And yet, when struggling for a “concrete” harm that could come from gay marriage, Scalia went with “considerable disagreement among sociologists.” So we’ve gone from a weak claim — “considerable disagreement” over harm is not the same thing as actual harm — to an explicitly wrong claim. Scalia offered no details or evidence of this considerable disagreement among sociologists, and it’s hard to believe he’s a better judge of the profession than the ASA, whose brief he notably declined to mention.

Heh.

[subego]

I'm going to draw fire for this, but if there was some harm to having same-sex parents there would be massive political pressure to sweep that under the rug.

My personal opinion is getting raised by homosexuals is probably harmful in some ways and good in others, just like being raised by hets.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm going to draw fire for this, but if there was some harm to having same-sex parents there would be massive political pressure to sweep that under the rug.

That works both ways no doubt. But I remember same-sex adoption debates in the 90s, and even then the studies were showing no demonstrable harm. Almost 20 years later, I'm sure we'd be seeing some fallout if they really were negative.

Originally Posted by subego 

My personal opinion is getting raised by homosexuals is probably harmful in some ways and good in others, just like being raised by hets.

No worse, on average at least.

The real hell for those save the family types is gay couples likely (I'm guessing) provide far better homes than single-parent heteros.

[subego]

Yup.

Also, my understanding is that males raised by males (including gay couples) have a lower incidence of homosexuality.

This is one of the compelling bits of evidence (to me) there's more going on than just genetics.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yup.

Also, my understanding is that males raised by males (including gay couples) have a lower incidence of homosexuality.

This is one of the compelling bits of evidence (to me) there's more going on than just genetics.

So what you're saying is we can blame the increase in gays and the subsequent rise of the gay rights movement on the rise of feminism and subsequent increase in divorce and boys raised by their mothers, right?

I keed, but it was a fun conspiracy theory to type out

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm going to draw fire for this, but if there was some harm to having same-sex parents there would be massive political pressure to sweep that under the rug.

My personal opinion is getting raised by homosexuals is probably harmful in some ways and good in others, just like being raised by hets.

Suicide rates are higher with kids raised by SS couples, but that's probably due to social pressures, not the home environment itself.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Suicide rates are higher with kids raised by SS couples, but that's probably due to social pressures, not the home environment itself.

Ack. Makes sense, but, ugh.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I love it, when someone finally agrees with them, after decades of arguing, they grab a hammer and crucify them. We wonder why our political system doesn't go anywhere?

You'll pardon me if I don't shed a tear for blowhard hothead quietly changing sides getting lampooned by a guy who's job is to make people laugh.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because there had been no compelling reason to extend the privilege.

It's not a privilege in the eyes of the law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think folks regard marriage as a right in the traditional sense of equality and protection.

How 'folks' regard marriage is irrelevant to the law.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The SCOTUS will rule when it is compelled to; generally about the time society is tripping over itself in decrying what it considers an obvious injustice, yes.

20% of people were in favor of interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia. A plurality of people didn't favor interracial marriage until 1991. The tripping you refer to never occurred.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Had people not been tripping over themselves decrying an injustice such that it would be escalated to and ruled upon by the highest court in the land, you'd have some states acknowledging interracial marriage and others not.

That didn't exactly address my question, but is your circumstance a good or bad thing?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ack. Makes sense, but, ugh.

There's the Right spin: Children of SS couples are 21% more likely to commit suicide.
There's the Left spin: SS households are just as loving and effective as OS.
There's the reality: Socially, it's tougher for kids of SS couples.
There's the truth that few people want to talk about: Most people are bigoted ****s who, to some degree (despite what they claim to support), get off on emotionally tormenting others, and it's worse when we're kids.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll pardon me if I don't shed a tear for blowhard hothead quietly changing sides getting lampooned by a guy who's job is to make people laugh.

I'm saying that proponents of SS marriage can't afford to be choosy of their allies. You accept, move on, and save the ammo for a different fight. Inclusion and acceptance breeds change. Being a nitpicky scrub will only come back to bite you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Being a nitpicky scrub will only come back to bite you.

If only O'Reilly had figured that out earlier.

[subego]

Kirk Announces Support For Same Sex Marriages - Chicago Tribune

Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back -- government has no place in the middle.

[The Final Dakar]

Some other dem did today, too. As did Casey (PA) last week. The official count is up to 50 exactly in the Senate, which is mildly remarkable. I think Portman deserves some credit for this.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not a privilege in the eyes of the law.

Of course it is. It's compensated. You are correct that in the eyes of the law, marriage is a right, but it is entirely unique from any other right. It's privilege by definition:

privilege |ˈpriv(ə)lij|
noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people : education is a right, not a privilege | he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.

You're arguing that it's a civil right and as such no different than interracial marriage. I'm telling you why SSM is latent by 47 years. Either homosexuals have not been rendered a class worthy of the compensation and acknowledgement afforded married people or people don't regard marriage as a right. (or both) You put it back on the Supreme Court, but then -- why weren't they compelled to allow for this possibility (SSM) when they had the opportunity to do so in Loving v Virginia in 1967? i.e. Why are we talking about SSM in 2013? I think you have to deal with civil and rights. Sexual orientation is simply not regarded in the same vein as race and marriage by its nature is not regarded as a right. This is law. You can say that in the plight contest, it's not even close and for very obvious reasons. To compare the two is lame IMO.

How 'folks' regard marriage is irrelevant to the law.

You act as if law doesn't reflect people.

20% of people were in favor of interracial marriage at the time of Loving vs. Virginia. A plurality of people didn't favor interracial marriage until 1991. The tripping you refer to never occurred.

Loving vs. Virginia, four years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act? You're comparing SSM being argued in the Supreme Court 16 years after DOMA with Loving v Virginia 3 years after the Civil Rights Act. Looks to me like the political process was more effective than the Supreme Court. Why such a fan of legislating from the bench?

That didn't exactly address my question, but is your circumstance a good or bad thing?

What do you mean, my circumstance? I'm the steward of my circumstance and it is a good thing, otherwise I could be like the other half of married people who pay good money to relieve themselves of this civil right.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course it is. It's compensated. You are correct that in the eyes of the law, marriage is a right, but it is entirely unique from any other right. It's privilege by definition:

privilege |ˈpriv(ə)lij|
noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people : education is a right, not a privilege | he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.

Are you saying it's a privilege because it's not allowed to everyone, and that is supposed to be a good non-circular reason for not allowing it to everyone?

You can say that in the plight contest, it's not even close and for very obvious reasons.

What are you referring to with "obvious reasons?" Slavery? Because if you constrict your scope of "plights" to marriage privileges, and I don't see why you wouldn't, then I'm having a hard time figuring out how interracial couples have ever had a harder "plight" than same-sex couples.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Are you saying it's a privilege because it's not allowed to everyone, and that is supposed to be a good non-circular reason for not allowing it to everyone?

Again, you're saying everyone. Marriage was never intended for everyone. Single people do not receive compensation or privilege because they're single and people supposedly arguing for equal marriage haven't uttered a word for blood relatives' right to marry and in fact make the very same arguments against it that opponents of SSM use. I'm calling marriage a privilege because it is a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to married people and I maintain for this reason society appears more protective of it. This is why I say -- for a compelling civil rights argument, you have to address both civil and right. If marriage is unique as a right in that it creates a class and elevates that class with privilege and sexual orientation is unique as a class in its fluidity, you're going to have more difficulty making a compelling case for SSM. I'm not saying these are good reasons to deny privilege as I see no good reason to elevate one class of people over another with special privilege to begin with.

What are you referring to with "obvious reasons?" Slavery? Because if you constrict your scope of "plights" to marriage privileges, and I don't see why you wouldn't, then I'm having a hard time figuring out how interracial couples have ever had a harder "plight" than same-sex couples.

Race. Race is different than sexual orientation and more easily defined or defended as a class worthy of privilege. You cannot separate race from interracial as race was the sole cause of consideration. With regard to marital privilege, the premise was that a black man and white woman are no different than a black man and black woman or white man and white woman. Why is it gays are having a more difficult time attaining the marital privilege? Because they're not the same and because privilege isn't for everyone by definition. Loving v Virginia occurred 3 years after landmark Civil Rights legislation and while in the throes of a large civil rights movement for blacks. SSM goes to Court 16 years after a landmark ruling against its right to exist. Obscure class, unique right, different outcome, and even 47 years later will essentially be kicked back to the States.

[The Final Dakar]

I meant to post this days ago but forgot; I think it shows that changing your icon isn't completely useless, and demonstrates the more positive or informative aspects of Facebook's ability to mine its user base for data.

Facebook maps out support for gay marriage as profile photo campaign takes off | The Verge

Estimated increase in profile changes for each county. Counties with more intense colors can be thought to have greater turnout as a result of the HRC equals campaign.

[subego]

There are some days I just want to eject everything between Florida and the Mason-Dixon.

[The Final Dakar]

I like the bright red splotch in Texas. Apparently its Austin.

[subego]

You'd think Austin wouldn't have that big of a delta.

[The Final Dakar]

Mississipi is by far the whitest sate, which isn't that surprising. Almost half of registered republicans there are still against interracial marriage.

[subego]

And the irony is I presume you have no small amount of black people in Mississippi who are against it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course it is. It's compensated. You are correct that in the eyes of the law, marriage is a right, but it is entirely unique from any other right. It's privilege by definition:

privilege |ˈpriv(ə)lij|
noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people : education is a right, not a privilege | he has been accustomed all his life to wealth and privilege.

You're arguing lingual semantics, but this is a legal matter. You affirmed that I am correct "in the eyes of the law" and I have the expectation that the SCOTUS will review the case with the eyes of the law, not linguistic semantics.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're arguing that it's a civil right and as such no different than interracial marriage. I'm telling you why SSM is latent by 47 years. Either homosexuals have not been rendered a class worthy of the compensation and acknowledgement afforded married people or people don't regard marriage as a right. (or both)

…and thats why it went to the SCOTUS for consideration! Because in the eyes of the law, that may now be wrong.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You put it back on the Supreme Court, but then -- why weren't they compelled to allow for this possibility (SSM) when they had the opportunity to do so in Loving v Virginia in 1967?

The same reason Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson were decided. Bigotry. (The difference between 1967 and now is the visibility and understanding of homosexuals has changed dramatically. Before they were secret deviants (much like blacks were previously thought to be inferior and more like animals). Now, AFAIK gays are considered equals. Logic follows they be afforded equal protection)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sexual orientation is simply not regarded in the same vein as race and marriage by its nature is not regarded as a right.

I agree that it is not concretely established [i]legally[i]. But isn't that part of the point of cases like this? I mean, even the opposing counsel affirmed that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong (Except for marriage!). I think that's rather damning.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You act as if law doesn't reflect people.

You know what, this is a valid rebuttal. My phrasing was not well thought out. After all, many would argue the law doesn't even reflect the Constitution, likely in deference to the will of the people.

What I should have said was how 'folks' regard rights is irrelevant to the constitution.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Loving vs. Virginia, four years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act? You're comparing SSM being argued in the Supreme Court 16 years after DOMA with Loving v Virginia 3 years after the Civil Rights Act.

Yes, I am. Please point out the problem with this.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Looks to me like the political process was more effective than the Supreme Court.

Oh **** off with this. This new revelation by conservatives embracing the political process in regards to granting rights reeks of the same self-serving reverence you hold for states rights – in both cases, the slow and uneven application of law serves their own self-interest and confidence in being able to control the political process on a smaller, more local level.

It seems to me the more reasonable conservatives admit equal rights for gays is inevitable, and changing demographics certainly project this. So now the tactic has shifted to stalling the inevitable as long as possible, guised in reverence for the legislative process, the constitution, or preventing resentment among those in the wrong. It utterly transparent and makes me sick.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why such a fan of legislating from the bench?

You may as well ask me "Why such a fan of doing what's right?" I may not agree with the SCOTUS on all of its rulings, but I agree with its place in our government 100%. It's the last line of defense for the wronged.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What do you mean, my circumstance? I'm the steward of my circumstance and it is a good thing, otherwise I could be like the other half of married people who pay good money to relieve themselves of this civil right.

Replace circumstance with example. So the question is, would a theoretical US where "you'd have some states acknowledging interracial marriage and others not" a good or bad thing in your eyes?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, you're saying everyone. Marriage was never intended for everyone. Single people do not receive compensation or privilege because they're single

The type of compensation would be impossible to give to a single person. It's not a $reward, it's recognition, it's shared assets, it's intimate rights of two people merging (partly) into a single legal identity. How do you propose this be granted to single people, who are they supposed to exercise that "sharing" privilege with? Give them a robotic friend to play the part? Honestly, if single people want to be called "married" (to themselves?), more power to them, but I just don't see what that gets them. Can you name a single person who has ever wanted this, and been denied it?

Not only that, but calling marriage a "compensation" isn't really accurate either. It's just as much a reaction to shared identity as it is a bestowal of shared identity. Married (in practice) people behave in ways that are in conflict with a system designed around an expectation of arms-length behavior. Adjusting the system to better account for reality is just pragmatism.

...and people supposedly arguing for equal marriage haven't uttered a word for blood relatives' right to marry and in fact make the very same arguments against it that opponents of SSM use.

Objection, first of all I am all in favor of legalizing sibling (and plural) marriage, assuming it's done fairly and precautions are taken to protect any offspring from birth defects due to the risky choices of the parents. I've said this before on macnn (I checked), and I'll say it again I'm sure.
Second of all, I have given two legitimate rational reasons here on macnn in the past, why homosexuality might be more socially acceptable than incest. Incest causes birth defects, while homosexuality doesn't. And any ill effects of homosexuality (if they exist) are risks shouldered by the risk-taker, while the risks of birth defects are shouldered by an innocent third party (the child).

If marriage is unique as a right in that it creates a class and elevates that class with privilege and sexual orientation is unique as a class in its fluidity, you're going to have more difficulty making a compelling case for SSM.

In that case it's not unique: disability is a class created by regulation, elevated with privilege (physical accommodations), and is fluid (people can both become disabled and become un-disabled). Does that satisfy your contention?

Race. Race is different than sexual orientation and more easily defined or defended as a class worthy of privilege.

No it's not. You're retreading old territory that has already been refuted in this very thread. It is no more difficult to define or defend sexual orientation than race, and since you didn't support your assertion to the contrary back in January, I assume you have been using the time since then to come up with something?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll pardon me if I don't shed a tear for blowhard hothead quietly changing sides getting lampooned by a guy who's job is to make people laugh.

Are we talking about O'Reilly or Obama?

[The Final Dakar]

Obama is a hothead?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Obama is a hothead?

You call that quietly?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You call that quietly?

Indeed. Both were grandstanding to show their new-found enlightenment, nothing subtle about either of them.

[The Final Dakar]

He said he didn't "feel that strongly" about gay marriage "one way or another" and thought the decision should be left to individual states.

This is quietly changing sides.

Coming out in favor of gay marriage would take some nuts.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're arguing lingual semantics, but this is a legal matter. You affirmed that I am correct "in the eyes of the law" and I have the expectation that the SCOTUS will review the case with the eyes of the law, not linguistic semantics.

It depends on whether the eyes of the law see eye to eye with you. One could argue, as I have, that marriage itself is contrary to the notion of equal protection, not unlike hate crimes, tax law... One could also argue, under the eyes of the law -- constitutional law, that this be ruled a State's Rights issue. Something you appear to oppose.

…and thats why it went to the SCOTUS for consideration! Because in the eyes of the law, that may now be wrong.

And I maintain that if they do anything, they will put lipstick on a pig. The whole notion causes my friends here, like Uncle Skeleton to argue for separate, but equal on this kind of relationship or that when we open this up to blood relatives. The SCOTUS can rule in favor of SSM and it's still going to be wrong, in the eyes of the law. IMO.

The same reason Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson were decided. Bigotry. (The difference between 1967 and now is the visibility and understanding of homosexuals has changed dramatically. Before they were secret deviants (much like blacks were previously thought to be inferior and more like animals). Now, AFAIK gays are considered equals. Logic follows they be afforded equal protection)

I agree that it is not concretely established [i]legally[i]. But isn't that part of the point of cases like this? I mean, even the opposing counsel affirmed that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong (Except for marriage!). I think that's rather damning.

Yes, gays are equal as a class just as blood relatives are equal as a class (except for marriage!). Why is marriage different that it would be excluded from immediate consideration in context of homosexuals and civil rights? Because marriage is a unique right that is extended by government and homosexuality is an obscure class. Both of these mean to me that, in the eyes of the law, the SCOTUS doesn't really have to do a thing.

What I should have said was how 'folks' regard rights is irrelevant to the constitution.

Again, I disagree. This is what the amendment process was designed for.

Yes, I am. Please point out the problem with this.

The relevant factor of interracial marriage was race. You were arguing that there had been no one tripping over one another during Loving v Virginia and I disagree. The ruling on interracial marriage came just 3 years after landmark Federal civil rights legislation for blacks. I've never been a fan of equating race with sexual orientation and my only point here was to reiterate that marriage is a unique right and homosexuality is a unique class. Yes, more than 4 decades later. This may save you some disappointment when the rulings come down in June.

Oh **** off with this. This new revelation by conservatives embracing the political process in regards to granting rights reeks of the same self-serving reverence you hold for states rights – in both cases, the slow and uneven application of law serves their own self-interest and confidence in being able to control the political process on a smaller, more local level.

It's the Great Experiment and if it's progress you're seeking -- there are several States leading the charge. Vermont for example, legalized SSM unions over 13 years ago. Law is going to reflect people regardless, just as it did in Loving v Virginia.

It seems to me the more reasonable conservatives admit equal rights for gays is inevitable, and changing demographics certainly project this. So now the tactic has shifted to stalling the inevitable as long as possible, guised in reverence for the legislative process, the constitution, or preventing resentment among those in the wrong. It utterly transparent and makes me sick.

It's just another issue for which disagreement makes liberals sick. Sheeple make me sick. Marriage is not in the constitution, but States Rights are in the 10th Amendment. Don't like that? Amend it. Otherwise, it will likely be handled by the States, in the eyes of the law. Equal protection? There is no aspect of contract law unavailable to you based on sexual orientation. Right now, you and I can enter a contractual partnership granting me all the rights of marriage. We just won't have the privilege of compensation.

You may as well ask me "Why such a fan of doing what's right?" I may not agree with the SCOTUS on all of its rulings, but I agree with its place in our government 100%. It's the last line of defense for the wronged.

You're arguing that it's a civil rights issue akin to racial equality and I maintain that it's more of a complex social issue and the SCOTUS will essentially kick this back to the States.

Replace circumstance with example. So the question is, would a theoretical US where "you'd have some states acknowledging interracial marriage and others not" a good or bad thing in your eyes?

A very bad thing. Now establish for me why a discriminatory institution should include gays? There was no paradigm shift in allowing this type of man to marry that type of woman as society had became more open to blacks-- there was no compelling reason to continue denying interracial marriage. While society is more open to homosexuality, SSM is still a paradigm shift and must make a more compelling civil rights case. As it stands now, marriage is still a discriminatory right and homosexuality is still an obscure, more fluid class more than 40 years later.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is quietly changing sides.

Coming out in favor of gay marriage would take some nuts.

O'Reilly hasn't changed any sides quietly or otherwise. As far back as I can remember, he had been for civil unions. If you've got something other than the opinions of clowns gunning for the cheap laughter of sheeple, I'd be open to reading it. It's politically correct to favor gay marriage and he'd be welcomed with open arms by anyone in the media industry for taking such a stance. i.e. there's absolutely nothing ballsy about it from his perspective.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The type of compensation would be impossible to give to a single person. It's not a $reward, it's recognition, it's shared assets, it's intimate rights of two people merging (partly) into a single legal identity.

How do you propose this be granted to single people, who are they supposed to exercise that "sharing" privilege with? Give them a robotic friend to play the part? Honestly, if single people want to be called "married" (to themselves?), more power to them, but I just don't see what that gets them. Can you name a single person who has ever wanted this, and been denied it?

Recognition for what? What does this recognition mean if not for the benefits conferred upon the relationship? If we're truly concerned about equal protection; there are only two ways to handle this -- either allow single people to file a joint return with any one person of their choosing, grant them a partner tax shelter, buddy IRA, higher charitable contribution deduction, and partner estate tax shelter among others or eliminate these advantages for married people. You don't think single people would like some more tax advantages?

Not only that, but calling marriage a "compensation" isn't really accurate either. It's just as much a reaction to shared identity as it is a bestowal of shared identity. Married (in practice) people behave in ways that are in conflict with a system designed around an expectation of arms-length behavior. Adjusting the system to better account for reality is just pragmatism.

I disagree. We're social beasts. The government didn't have to invent loving relationships, we developed those all on our own. The system wasn't adjusted to account for reality, the system was adjusted to further govern and manipulate it.

Objection, first of all I am all in favor of legalizing sibling (and plural) marriage, assuming it's done fairly and precautions are taken to protect any offspring from birth defects due to the risky choices of the parents. I've said this before on macnn (I checked), and I'll say it again I'm sure.

So... siblings can get married; separate, but equal with some conditions, verification, and enforcement?

Second of all, I have given two legitimate rational reasons here on macnn in the past, why homosexuality might be more socially acceptable than incest. Incest causes birth defects, while homosexuality doesn't. And any ill effects of homosexuality (if they exist) are risks shouldered by the risk-taker, while the risks of birth defects are shouldered by an innocent third party (the child).

And I've explained why these are weak arguments IMO. There are generally no procreative fitness tests for any two people currently wanting to get married and we don't deny marriage to high-risk adults such as those in their late 40's with a higher rate of birth defects than consanguineous offspring. Using your logic, I could say IVF causes birth defects because of its higher rate.

In that case it's not unique: disability is a class created by regulation, elevated with privilege (physical accommodations), and is fluid (people can both become disabled and become un-disabled). Does that satisfy your contention?

No. Is there anyone who wants to be disabled? Disability is a class created by misfortune, regardless of government action to accommodate the condition. What you're talking about are accommodations for misfortune, not privileges.

No it's not. You're retreading old territory that has already been refuted in this very thread. It is no more difficult to define or defend sexual orientation than race, and since you didn't support your assertion to the contrary back in January, I assume you have been using the time since then to come up with something?

I get it. So if you don't appreciate my responses; I've done nothing to support my assertions back in January which of course means I can look forward to this again in... June-ish?

Originally Posted by ebuddy from January

You began with octoroon; a better example of less race and would be less of a consideration on any racial matter. I don't accept that premise and maintain that sexual orientation is more fluid than race and gender.

It seemed I didn't accept your refutation, how shall we handle this?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Recognition for what? What does this recognition mean if not for the benefits conferred upon the relationship? If we're truly concerned about equal protection; there are only two ways to handle this -- either allow single people to file a joint return with any one person of their choosing, grant them a partner tax shelter, buddy IRA, higher charitable contribution deduction, and partner estate tax shelter among others or eliminate these advantages for married people. You don't think single people would like some more tax advantages?

Nothing is stopping a single person from filing a joint return with any one person of their choosing, they can sham-marry anyone they want. Except for same-sex of course

The system wasn't adjusted to account for reality, the system was adjusted to further govern and manipulate it.

That is not different from what I said; the goal of governing and manipulating is helped by recognizing people for what they are (which I referred to as "account for reality"), and harmed by pretending a spade is not a spade.

So... siblings can get married; separate, but equal with some conditions, verification, and enforcement?

What did I say that implied or necessitated "separate?"

And I've explained why these are weak arguments IMO. There are generally no procreative fitness tests for any two people currently wanting to get married and we don't deny marriage to high-risk adults such as those in their late 40's with a higher rate of birth defects than consanguineous offspring. Using your logic, I could say IVF causes birth defects because of its higher rate.

And in a nutshell that's why I don't oppose incest marriage, but on the other hand the risk level is significantly different between IVF and incest. The birth defect rate is ~36% higher (than normal) for IVF, but ~300-550% higher for (sibling/parent) incest.

No. Is there anyone who wants to be disabled? Disability is a class created by misfortune, regardless of government action to accommodate the condition. What you're talking about are accommodations for misfortune, not privileges.

That has never been a condition of lawmaking. The premise of equal rights is to level the playing field. Gays are not asking for any "privileges" as you call it. They're only asking for a level playing field, just like race and just like disability. It would be easier for you to claim that the disabled are/were asking for "priviliges," because they get ramps and elevators that other people wouldn't get (and lavish bathroom stalls, just ask Larry David ), but the unifying ideal is that it levels the playing field (as best we can).

I get it. So if you don't appreciate my responses; I've done nothing to support my assertions back in January which of course means I can look forward to this again in... June-ish?

It seemed I didn't accept your refutation, how shall we handle this?

Well I'm not going to call you a bigot, I sincerely think you are not one, but your logic is the logic a bigot would use. You can't address the content of the refutation except to say "I refuse to accept that refutation," and then lay low until you think it's clear to reassert your refuted claims that one person is not equal or more "fluid" than another... there's no reasoning with a position like that. So obviously I won't try to reason with it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Nothing is stopping a single person from filing a joint return with any one person of their choosing, they can sham-marry anyone they want. Except for same-sex of course.

... or blood relatives. Why should people who simply want the same privileges as you have to jump through hoops to get them? Isn't that the whole point of legalizing SSM? After all, a gay person can sham-marry anyone they want too... except for same sex people and blood relatives.

That is not different from what I said; the goal of governing and manipulating is helped by recognizing people for what they are (which I referred to as "account for reality"), and harmed by pretending a spade is not a spade.

Marriage licenses were conceived and issued post-Civil War originally to track black people. You can say that's "recognizing people for what they are", but somehow I'm certain that's not what you meant. By eventually conferring benefits upon the union, it became a State-sanctioned privilege by definition and unlike any other right in or not-in the Constitution.

What did I say that implied or necessitated "separate?"

So... all couples would be required to establish that it's done fairly and precautions taken to protect any offspring from birth defects due to their risky choices? How shall they begin this daunting task, check those with Social Security numbers starting in the 500's?

And in a nutshell that's why I don't oppose incest marriage, but on the other hand the risk level is significantly different between IVF and incest. The birth defect rate is ~36% higher (than normal) for IVF, but ~300-550% higher for (sibling/parent) incest.

Agreed. After all, the risk levels vary based on a multitude of factors we're not verifying anyway.

That has never been a condition of lawmaking. The premise of equal rights is to level the playing field. Gays are not asking for any "privileges" as you call it. They're only asking for a level playing field, just like race and just like disability. It would be easier for you to claim that the disabled are/were asking for "priviliges," because they get ramps and elevators that other people wouldn't get (and lavish bathroom stalls, just ask Larry David ), but the unifying ideal is that it levels the playing field (as best we can).

Since when has the purpose ever been to level a playing field? You say we compensate/accommodate disability to level the playing field, what field are we leveling with marriage compensation/accommodation?

Well I'm not going to call you a bigot, I sincerely think you are not one, but your logic is the logic a bigot would use. You can't address the content of the refutation except to say "I refuse to accept that refutation," and then lay low until you think it's clear to reassert your refuted claims that one person is not equal or more "fluid" than another... there's no reasoning with a position like that. So obviously I won't try to reason with it.

That's probably for the best as I've said on at least one occasion in this thread, at no time was race considered mutable or a mental disorder and that it's simply more difficult to civil rights-argue your way out of it. You decided to snack on subego for a while. What else do you want from me?

What I want is for people to quit bullshitting themselves and others with "you're a ______ if you don't think or champion what I do", "equal rights", "equal protection", "equal marriage", "but black people..."

Generally, the folks I've argued on this topic;

• couldn't care less if consanguineous couples could marry and often argue against it. Why? Frankly, it's yucky and they just don't get it. They're not bigots because thankfully most others think it's yucky too. Whew.
• When pressed on their reasoning, reproductive fitness and rearing potential are all of a sudden paramount. As if AIDS didn't sufficiently scare the living shit out of a lot of voters or the concern for lack of substantive data on rearing potential. Bigots of course because they didn't take the time to stay abreast of popular thought and enlightenment or at least, not through the preferred channels.
• are not interested in equal protection. If it'll win a larger clique of funny people, they'll lap up any notion of "hate crimes" legislation, progressive tax schemes, regulations, or any other lopsided application of law that speaks some justice to them.
• believe, though generally indefensible, that homosexuality is akin to race. That it is, by virtue of seeking a marital status, a class for which this exclusive package of benefits called marriage must be extended. In this, there's more interest in some kind of validation than equality.

My point throughout has been that homosexuality is simply not understood well enough for the SCOTUS to impose SSM upon the States. I think this is a missed opportunity however. They could take this important time to address the entire notion of marriage and the government's role in it. It should start by striking down DOMA and then rethink whether it should validate the drunken Elvis Love chapel marriage outside the Casino hotel where Bubba was conceived. If the SCOTUS legalizes SSM along with hetero marriage - not bad. Kicks it back to the States - not bad and pretty much expected, discontinues the attempt to define marriage to appease these people or those people calling any two people who wish to enter the agreement a civil union - best.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That's funny, while doing some background reading just now I discovered that cousin-marriage is already a patchwork, with a large number of US states by turns allowing, banning, criminalizing, or refusing to recognize marriages from other states. It seems that this is very relevant to questions asked by the Justices about potential problems with state-specific gay marriage... I wonder why no one mentioned it(?)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... or blood relatives. Why should people who simply want the same privileges as you have to jump through hoops to get them? Isn't that the whole point of legalizing SSM? After all, a gay person can sham-marry anyone they want too... except for same sex people and blood relatives.

I approve of relatives' right to marry, if that is their desire. But there's nothing saying that one injustice can't be righted until we can right all other injustices. And if I had to choose between the two (which of course I don't), there are more people out there being harmed by the same-sex ban than by the blood-relative ban.

Marriage licenses were conceived and issued post-Civil War originally to track black people.

That's a rather unbelievable claim. Can you substantiate it? The wikipedia page on marriage licenses in the US cites this document which contradicts your claim by indicating that marriage license law in (what is now) the US dates back all the way to 1639:

"For example, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the dissenters from the Church of
England objected to the regulation of marriage by canon law, and as early as 1639 adopted
statutes and regulations governing marriage in that colony. Once these laws were passed,
requiring a formal ceremony, licensing or registration, and designating the officiant,
common law marriage was no longer available. Other colonies that followed this path
included Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,54 North Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.55"

So... all couples would be required to establish that it's done fairly and precautions taken to protect any offspring from birth defects due to their risky choices?

No, "it" was referring to a new law, not a new marriage, sorry about that ambiguous pronoun.

Since when has the purpose ever been to level a playing field? You say we compensate/accommodate disability to level the playing field, what field are we leveling with marriage compensation/accommodation?

Marriage is the field. I said that leveling the playing field is the premise of civil rights, not of marriage or of "marriage compensation" or of all instances of compensation or accommodation.

What I want is for people to quit bullshitting themselves and others with "you're a ______ if you don't think or champion what I do", "equal rights", "equal protection", "equal marriage", "but black people..."

It's pretty hypocritical of you to fault others for bullshitting themselves on this issue. Since I'm not one of those people you can point that strawman elsewhere

couldn't care less if consanguineous couples could marry and often argue against it. Why? Frankly, it's yucky and they just don't get it. They're not bigots because thankfully most others think it's yucky too. Whew.

I would argue against them on that issue, if that issue were under debate, but in the mean time so what? If a bigot can overcome his bigotry one issue at a time, that's still a net win for civil rights. If a good ol' boy still hates catholics but has accepted women's rights, the fact that he is wrong on catholics doesn't invalidate the merits of his arguments on women. What you're doing is an ad hom; you might as well say the person's argument is negated by the fact that they voted for Ralph Nader or that they hated Star Wars. A debater's opinions on other issues does not in itself invalidate the arguments used in their debate.

When pressed on their reasoning, reproductive fitness and rearing potential are all of a sudden paramount.

No, you are moving the goal posts. Creating mutant children is not the same thing as being unable to create any children in the first place.

As if AIDS didn't sufficiently scare the living shit out of a lot of voters

A risk that applies to the risk-taker is a different ball-game than a risk that applies to a third party.

or the concern for lack of substantive data on rearing potential.

Which we now have (posted earlier in this thread).

[*] are not interested in equal protection. If it'll win a larger clique of funny people, they'll lap up any notion of "hate crimes" legislation, progressive tax schemes, regulations, or any other lopsided application of law that speaks some justice to them.

You lost me. Is this a "positive" stereotype about gays that I'm unaware of?

[*] believe, though generally indefensible, that homosexuality is akin to race.

You're misrepresenting your opponent. Simply claiming that gay marriage is among the group of civil rights issues does not require that homosexuality is equivalent to race. No civil rights relevant group is equivalent to the others. In key ways race is not akin to gender, and neither are akin to disability, to religion, or to creed. That doesn't invalidate any of them as civil rights issues.

My point throughout has been that homosexuality is simply not understood well enough for the SCOTUS to impose SSM upon the States. I think this is a missed opportunity however. They could take this important time to address the entire notion of marriage and the government's role in it.

I agree, that would be a very elegant solution. Which doesn't mean we can't disagree on what to do after that opportunity goes by.

If the SCOTUS legalizes SSM along with hetero marriage - not bad.

I'm glad to hear you say it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I approve of relatives' right to marry, if that is their desire. But there's nothing saying that one injustice can't be righted until we can right all other injustices. And if I had to choose between the two (which of course I don't), there are more people out there being harmed by the same-sex ban than by the blood-relative ban.

By "hurt", there are many more not getting the benefit than are. With regard to marriage, I believe "justice" is either overblown or marriage itself is an injustice.

That's a rather unbelievable claim. Can you substantiate it? The wikipedia page on marriage licenses in the US cites this document which contradicts your claim by indicating that marriage license law in (what is now) the US dates back all the way to 1639:

"For example, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the dissenters from the Church of
England objected to the regulation of marriage by canon law, and as early as 1639 adopted
statutes and regulations governing marriage in that colony. Once these laws were passed,
requiring a formal ceremony, licensing or registration, and designating the officiant,
common law marriage was no longer available. Other colonies that followed this path
included Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland,54 North Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.55"

History of Marriage Licenses
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

If Wiki is our source;

Marriage License
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.

No, "it" was referring to a new law, not a new marriage, sorry about that ambiguous pronoun.

So if "it" refers to law and the law is to be applied equally, all couples would be required to establish that precautions had been taken to protect any offspring from birth defects due to their risky choices?

Marriage is the field. I said that leveling the playing field is the premise of civil rights, not of marriage or of "marriage compensation" or of all instances of compensation or accommodation.

All this establishes for me is the difficulty in defining marriage as a civil right. The foundation of this argument was around the compensation and benefits conferred upon marriage. You used other examples to illustrate how compensation/benefits are used to level the playing field. You're moving goalposts now. If not for the benefits conferred upon the marriage, there is no marriage. So... the playing field is not level for anyone not married. Period. How is that like any civil right and what playing field is leveled by providing benefits and privilege?

It's pretty hypocritical of you to fault others for bullshitting themselves on this issue. Since I'm not one of those people you can point that strawman elsewhere

I'll try to be more precise for you, but I thought use of the word "Generally" to open my complaints sufficed as "not necessarily directed at you" notwithstanding the fact that you had brought up reproductive fitness only when we began discussing blood-relative marriage. I take issue with the use of "bigot" implied or otherwise, it's a real show-stopper, but not for the reasons the folks who use these terms believe. It's more or less a bully tactic and a cop-out. If this doesn't apply to you, so be it. I'm glad.

I would argue against them on that issue, if that issue were under debate, but in the mean time so what? If a bigot can overcome his bigotry one issue at a time, that's still a net win for civil rights. If a good ol' boy still hates catholics but has accepted women's rights, the fact that he is wrong on catholics doesn't invalidate the merits of his arguments on women. What you're doing is an ad hom; you might as well say the person's argument is negated by the fact that they voted for Ralph Nader or that they hated Star Wars. A debater's opinions on other issues does not in itself invalidate the arguments used in their debate.

Again, it's hypocritical. Just because most people think like they do doesn't make their reasoning any less flawed than the traditional bigots on any other matter.

No, you are moving the goal posts. Creating mutant children is not the same thing as being unable to create any children in the first place.

There's no reason to assume mutant children are the product of these relationships and with IVF, anyone can either provide a seed or receive it and while IVF shows a higher rate of defect, I've not seen this mentioned in any discussions on the possibilities for gay parenthood.

A risk that applies to the risk-taker is a different ball-game than a risk that applies to a third party.

How does this address my point? Homosexuality remains a primary risk factor of AIDS. It's a game of odds regardless, assuming carriers of HIV are often times, unaware. We don't blood test those seeking marriage today, why would "risk" be important now either way?

Which we now have (posted earlier in this thread).

I missed that substantive evidence had been provided for homosexual parenthood, but have read several studies to the contrary. We'll have a link war when I have more time.

You lost me. Is this a "positive" stereotype about gays that I'm unaware of?

That may have been part of my complaint that did not apply to you. I'm complaining about the feigned championing of an ideal they have no problem violating when it suits their personal views or situations.

You're misrepresenting your opponent. Simply claiming that gay marriage is among the group of civil rights issues does not require that homosexuality is equivalent to race. No civil rights relevant group is equivalent to the others. In key ways race is not akin to gender, and neither are akin to disability, to religion, or to creed. That doesn't invalidate any of them as civil rights issues.

Nor does any of this negate my argument that marriage law itself created the civil rights issue and is itself, discriminatory. Protecting gays from employment discrimination and abuse is not difficult to legislate, including them in an exclusive club worthy of compensation and privilege is more difficult.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

By "hurt", there are many more not getting the benefit than are.

Please give one example, whose lack of a marriage benefit is due to state policy rather than due to their inability to recruit a willing adult partner with which to apply.

History of Marriage Licenses
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

If Wiki is our source;

Marriage License
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.

Oh, when you first said "conceived" I took that to mean that the idea of licensing marriages was conceived in that context (lending support to your "repeal government marriage" idea). Now I see you just meant that someone took an existing idea (marriage licenses) and tried to use it to advance their own pet project.

So if "it" refers to law and the law is to be applied equally, all couples would be required to establish that precautions had been taken to protect any offspring from birth defects due to their risky choices?

That would not be the only way that such a law could be conceived. For example, if we develop (safe and effective) gene therapy before that law is proposed, then the law could require the parents of such affected children agree to use gene therapy to reverse the damage, if any damage occurs.

All this establishes for me is the difficulty in defining marriage as a civil right. The foundation of this argument was around the compensation and benefits conferred upon marriage. You used other examples to illustrate how compensation/benefits are used to level the playing field. You're moving goalposts now. If not for the benefits conferred upon the marriage, there is no marriage. So... the playing field is not level for anyone not married. Period. How is that like any civil right and what playing field is leveled by providing benefits and privilege?

It's like all the other civil rights in that respect, in that the benefits are still not shared by all. We require that employment consideration be equal between blacks and whites, but the unemployed and unqualified are left out. We require that women be allowed to vote, but non-citizens and felons are still left out. We require that the disabled be allowed ramps and enormous bathroom stalls, but all non-disabled are left out.

The "level playing field" analogy means that everyone starts the "game" equal, not that everyone wins the game. It addresses inequality due to prejudice, not due to merit. That would be welfare, which we also do, but which gays aren't asking.

I take issue with the use of "bigot" implied or otherwise, it's a real show-stopper, but not for the reasons the folks who use these terms believe. It's more or less a bully tactic and a cop-out.

I am sensitive to that, as I hopefully made clear in my last post, but at the same time what are people supposed to say when they see someone use logic that can't be supported except based on bigotry?

Again, it's hypocritical. Just because most people think like they do doesn't make their reasoning any less flawed than the traditional bigots on any other matter.

If their reasoning can't stand on its own without attacking the person, then there's no need to attack the person. That's why the ad hom is a fallacy.

There's no reason to assume mutant children are the product of these relationships and with IVF, anyone can either provide a seed or receive it and while IVF shows a higher rate of defect, I've not seen this mentioned in any discussions on the possibilities for gay parenthood.

Because it's not a common practice, it is not expected to be very convincing.

How does this address my point? Homosexuality remains a primary risk factor of AIDS. It's a game of odds regardless, assuming carriers of HIV are often times, unaware. We don't blood test those seeking marriage today, why would "risk" be important now either way?

To those for whom risk is important, they can and do ask for blood tests. My wife asked me to get a blood test, back when we first met. The point is that anyone who wants to be protected from that risk is already fully able to protect themselves. Not so for the future children of incestuous marriages (which again I am not opposed to, just showing why it is not part-and-parcel with gay marriage).

Nor does any of this negate my argument that marriage law itself created the civil rights issue and is itself, discriminatory. Protecting gays from employment discrimination and abuse is not difficult to legislate, including them in an exclusive club worthy of compensation and privilege is more difficult.

If marriage is an exclusive and worthy club just because some people can't find a mate, then how is employment not also an exclusive and worthy club just because some people can't find a job?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Please give one example, whose lack of a marriage benefit is due to state policy rather than due to their inability to recruit a willing adult partner with which to apply.

You may have been able to argue this when common law marriages were acknowledged, but now that they are not -- a wealth of people are not granted the civil right specifically due to State policy. Why would I have to prove this and why would their ability matter with regard to a civil right? The fact is, people are being denied a right and related State-sanctioned privilege based on factors that may be beyond their control. How many? I don't know, but there are more than a few arguing for the privatization of marriage for just this reason. Marriage law creates a class of people and elevates them, with benefits, above the remainder of society in an unequal manner. Otherwise, why should any single person or couple living together, raising kids, and/or meeting all the obligations of cohabitation not be eligible for the benefit without jumping through hoops to get it?

Oh, when you first said "conceived" I took that to mean that the idea of licensing marriages was conceived in that context (lending support to your "repeal government marriage" idea). Now I see you just meant that someone took an existing idea (marriage licenses) and tried to use it to advance their own pet project.

There had been registrations as you mentioned, but they were generally issued along common law marriage. The licensing requirement occurred in tandem with action to ban common law marriages and require certification to ensure there would be no race-mixing; all to support my original argument that the system was not adjusted to account for reality, but to further govern and manipulate it.

That would not be the only way that such a law could be conceived. For example, if we develop (safe and effective) gene therapy before that law is proposed, then the law could require the parents of such affected children agree to use gene therapy to reverse the damage, if any damage occurs.

Assuming you've thought this through the next couple of queries; an integral part of the marriage construct would then include provisions for mandatory gene therapy treatments for your offspring? Putting aside the fact that we've moved away from mandatory blood tests and you're essentially advocating that we bring them back; gene therapy is a long way from not simply introducing new problems that can then be passed down through subsequent lines of offspring and even with some reasonable degree of mastery would never be bullet-proof. Does that really sound reasonable to you or are you retro-fitting your argument to suit a complex situation for which there is no easy button in order to maintain disagreement?

It's like all the other civil rights in that respect, in that the benefits are still not shared by all. We require that employment consideration be equal between blacks and whites, but the unemployed and unqualified are left out.

I don't accept this premise. If your'e unqualified and unemployed, you get a government benefit (leveling the playing field) -- not the other way around.

We require that women be allowed to vote, but non-citizens and felons are still left out. We require that the disabled be allowed ramps and enormous bathroom stalls, but all non-disabled are left out.

I've used ramps and the enormous bathroom stalls when necessary, you haven't? Regardless, we've already established how these laws were created to level the playing field. Marriage law itself creates the lopsided playing field and then we have to bicker over who qualifies for the government benefit. Marriage and the related benefits are not leveling any playing field and in fact creates an unequal environment for unwed couples raising children, single people, blood relatives, and those wanting to marry others of the same sex.

The "level playing field" analogy means that everyone starts the "game" equal, not that everyone wins the game. It addresses inequality due to prejudice, not due to merit. That would be welfare, which we also do, but which gays aren't asking.

I am sensitive to that, as I hopefully made clear in my last post, but at the same time what are people supposed to say when they see someone use logic that can't be supported except based on bigotry?

How have gays not started the game equal? They grew up with all the same rights as everyone else including all fat people, people with severe acne, short people, people with long hair, no hair... In fact, gays have all the rights of literally everyone else including blood relatives and unmarried couples with regard to contract law. Gays also have the ability to pursue "hate crimes" protections you and I cannot and while I agree with some extra time for an ass that would abuse someone because of their sexual orientation, (leveling the playing field) I've always wondered how a defense could establish whether or not it was gay on gay crime. Anyway, why would the ideal of marriage being between one man and one woman necessarily be an opinion, not based on reason or actual experience? i.e. where's the prejudice? If there is a source for it at all, it has been in the construct of marriage law itself; first documenting the relationships as they happened somewhat organically and then straight manipulating them and birthing up numerous subsequent generations of heterosexual people expecting paper to legitimize their relationships. I think the case against those (acknowledging that it wasn't directed at me) who would seek to defend a traditional definition of marriage is overblown by the liberal usage of terms like bigot and homophobe. You find an instance of violence against someone by virtue of their sexual orientation for example and you will see churches and religious organizations among the first to decry it. The term bigotry is becoming so broad as to encompass any judgement made, at all.

Because it's not a common practice, it is not expected to be very convincing.

So, you'll consider legislation that would rely on future medical capabilities while discarding evidence of a current medical procedure as unconvincing?

To those for whom risk is important, they [read - government] can and do ask for blood tests. My wife...

From which risky demographic are they (the government) requiring blood tests again?

Not so for the future children of incestuous marriages (which again I am not opposed to, just showing why it is not part-and-parcel with gay marriage).

We cannot make that determination. It cannot be presupposed that the offspring of blood relatives will have a birth defect any more than it can be presupposed of two adults in their 40's or those with a history of cancer. We're discussing whether or not blood relatives, single people, cohabiting couples, etc are worthy of equal protection under the law. In this, we've agreed (albeit separate, but equal contingent upon "risk") there should be no such qualifiers for equal protection.

If marriage is an exclusive and worthy club just because some people can't find a mate, then how is employment not also an exclusive and worthy club just because some people can't find a job?

Employment may very well be an exclusive and worthy club which is why we compensate those who cannot join. This is government responding to reality in an attempt to level the playing field. What I'm talking about is the government creating an elevated class by compensating the relationship; the exact opposite.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You may have been able to argue this when common law marriages were acknowledged, but now that they are not -- a wealth of people are not granted the civil right specifically due to State policy. Why would I have to prove this and why would their ability matter with regard to a civil right?

I don't understand what's stopping them from getting the license, if they want it. The only circumstance I know of for someone to be common-law but not officially married is either that they don't care (read: not harmed) or they actually prefer it that way to make some sort of statement (read: the opposite of harmed).

Marriage law creates a class of people and elevates them, with benefits, above the remainder of society in an unequal manner.

False. Marriage law recognizes that there already are a class of people that are different.

Otherwise, why should any single person or couple living together, raising kids, and/or meeting all the obligations of cohabitation not be eligible for the benefit without jumping through hoops to get it?

Exactly what benefit are you proposing single people to get? The benefits of marriage all involve sharing of things with another person; how are you claiming single people are expected to accomplish this?

There had been registrations as you mentioned, but they were generally issued along common law marriage. The licensing requirement occurred in tandem with action to ban common law marriages and require certification to ensure there would be no race-mixing; all to support my original argument that the system was not adjusted to account for reality, but to further govern and manipulate it.

A system having been "adjusted" at some point for nefarious purposes does not poison it for all eternity. Unless you're claiming that it's still being use now for race discrimination, I don't see how this is relevant.

Assuming you've thought this through the next couple of queries...[re: novel incest law]

This might come as a surprise to you, but I don't have to think it through in order to say I would support it if certain conditions were somehow met. If you want to prove that "somehow" is theoretically impossible, be my guest. Otherwise I'm not interested in pursuing that.

I don't accept this premise. If your'e unqualified and unemployed, you get a government benefit (leveling the playing field) -- not the other way around.

Just because civil rights are about leveling the playing field, doesn't mean you can apply that analogy to all marriage (like you did yesterday and are about to do again) or all government benefit (like you're doing now). Welfare isn't a level playing field, it's the opposite, a safety net.

Marriage law itself creates the lopsided playing field...

False. Marriage creates a lopsided playing field; marriage law merely deals with the reality of marriage.

Marriage and the related benefits are not leveling any playing field...

I said that civil rights laws are about leveling the playing field, and you keep conflating that with other laws that aren't focused on civil rights.

and in fact creates an unequal environment for unwed couples raising children, single people, blood relatives, and those wanting to marry others of the same sex.

The first is by their choice. The second is theoretically impossible to remedy (pending your answer to my repeated question about how that would be possible). The third infringes the rights of other innocent parties (the resulting children) and is therefore non-trivial to remedy. The last is trivial to remedy and doesn't infringe the rights of any third parties.

Edit: oops, counting error corrected

Anyway, why would the ideal of marriage being between one man and one woman necessarily be an opinion, not based on reason or actual experience? i.e. where's the prejudice?

If at any point in any of these debates there had been a single piece of valid reasoning or experience presented in support of excluding gays from marriage, then I might be inclined to agree with you on that.

So, you'll consider legislation that would rely on future medical capabilities while discarding evidence of a current medical procedure as unconvincing?

Yes, I would consider being convinced by hypotheticals, while I would not expect my opponent to be convinced by current but rare medical procedures. It would be foolish for someone to expect the same level of skepticism between me and the other side of the debate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

To those for whom risk is important, they [read - government] can and do ask for blood tests. My wife...

From which risky demographic are they (the government) requiring blood tests again?

Sorry, "they" refers to "those for whom risk is important." This unambiguous reference was further clarified in the next sentence, "anyone who wants to be protected is able to." Government's role is to protect those who can't protect themselves (eg market failure).

We cannot make that determination. It cannot be presupposed that the offspring of blood relatives will have a birth defect

But it can be tested for

Employment may very well be an exclusive and worthy club which is why we compensate those who cannot join.

In that case your argument for the marriage "club" is invalidated, as it fails to distinguish things that we already know are prejudiced, such as race discrimination in employment.

This is government responding to reality in an attempt to level the playing field. What I'm talking about is the government creating an elevated class by compensating the relationship; the exact opposite.

Yes, sometimes government does the exact opposite of level the playing field, such as the example I already gave of welfare and safety nets. That's why I didn't say government was all about leveling the playing field, I said civil rights was all about leveling the playing field, and we both know that government does more than just civil rights.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Rational means it follows its own consistent internal logic. Fair means that it elevates the downtrodden and leans more heavily on the privileged. Things can be rational without being fair; for example bailing out the TBTF banks was rational (it followed through with its own stated goals to preserve as much of the status quo as possible), but it wasn't fair (it favored the elite class instead of the lower classes, making the elite even more elite). Things can be fair without being rational; for example federal loan subsidies like housing and student loan are fair (they level the playing field between rich and poor customers), but not rational (by tipping the scales towards limitless demand, they create a bubble in supply). Other examples of fair but not rational arguably include patents, child support, medical malpractice, and government funding of the arts.

Being fair at the expense of rational is a laudable goal, so it's not at all unexpected to find ourselves with far more examples of fair-but-not-rational than vice versa. If we pursue rational and ignore fair, we will end up in a libertarian dystopia. But of course, we can't throw rational out the window entirely

Edit: I realize I should point out that I'm not saying the pro-gay side isn't rational; it is. In this case, both sides are rational and internally-consistent. The "marriage is for procreation and PS no gays allowed" argument is rational but not fair, and the pro-gay-marriage side is both rational and fair. IMO ebuddy's plan to remove marriage from government altogether is also both rational and fair.

I have to give you credit, you gave some pretty good examples, as far as I can tell. Still, I feel there's a point of logic that must be escaping me as to how his position is not actually rational. Perhaps I just lack the ability to cognate what I'm sensing. After all, I feel I could rationalize student loans. I'm not sure I could illustrate the bailout was fair, but I feel that's more an outcome of bad terms rather than the initial concept.