[Doofy]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Yes, we know, we know...

Who's this "we"? You got the family crowded around the iMac or a multiple personality disorder or something?

[0157988944]

yes.

[Doofy]

Good to know.

[kmkkid]

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

Straights CAN reproduce. Oh my god. No they can't shoot lasers out of their eyes, but they can do some pretty disgusting things with their body parts. It is a disgusting lifestyle, and why should it be promoted, and taught in schools? You want your daughter / wife going around sucking d***s? I didn't think so.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

My remark on the typo was obviously just a bit of mischief, not a serious argument.

Here are two examples of logical arguments that to me are compelling:

The position against gay marriage is tantamount to gender discrimination
This is because we are changing how we treat people based solely on the gender of their chosen partner. If you will allow someone a man to get married, for example, only if his partner is a woman and not if that partner is a man, that is blatant discrimination based on a person's gender, which is something everyone should be against.

We aren't "changing' how we treat people. We are treating people how they always have been treated. Your argument is much like a funny story I heard once. An older women who never married and was usually preoccupied with stuff that really didn't need her intrusion, complained to the pastor of her church when they were doing some renovating. It seems as though they were putting fixures in the men's room that they were leaving out of the ladies room and she felt that it was only fair that women get the same equipment as the men. She didn't quite understand that in order to be able to use the equipment in question, she would need to be able to comfortably pee standing up. The women of the church weren't being discriminated against because they were women, they were being discriminated against because their "potty parts" didn't work the way that is necessary in order to get the same sort of plumbing in the bathroom. Once it was explained to her, she was understandably embarrassed.

The same is the case with people who want to join together in unions with their own sex. Marriage has since it's origin pretty much only been a official recognition of a long term union between a man and a women which generally result in the creation of offspring. This is the case regardless of whether they intend to reproduce or think that they can. The world is filled with children created from the reproduction of men and women who either thought they didn't want children or couldn't have them. This would NEVER be the case with two members of the same sex. The thing that is being discriminated against is not the individual sexes of those involved, but rather the particular grouping in question's ability to provide society with the same compelling interest to recognize their unions as there are with groupings that normally result in new life. There is no compelling state interest to recognize "love". That's simply a private matter. Given the fact that there is no recognized Constitutional right to protect homosexuality (and that's really what's being discriminated against in this case, with good reason), it's illogical to argue gender discriminiation. Even an argument of sexual orientation discrimination is off base since there is a compelling interest (as there was in the bathroom example) for differentiation.

The position against gay marriage constitutes religious persecution, and could be violative of the separation between church and state

There are reasons above and beyond religious ones for the exclusion of groups not able to meet the generally accepted standard for marriage, as I've pointed out. Religion has little to do with it.

Ironically, I actually agree with the conservatives that marriage is worth protecting and that it's sacred. I'm just not stuck in their narrow view of what marriage is. What I think is shameful is that the conservatives (or the anti-gay-marriage crowd) would insist that the thousands upon thousands of children being raised by gay parents be deemed illegitimate under the with all the attendant problems with inheritance and medical decisionmaking, etc.

What a lot of conservatives would like is for children to grow up with a loving mother and father, which is what the affirmative action of marriage recognition seeks to promote. I'm all for making it easier for children who for whatever reason do not have benefit of the preferred standard access to things they need via other legal methods.

It is typical right-wing hypocrisy to claimthat government should stay out of our lives ... unless, of course, we want to marry someone they don't like. When that happens, they leap right in, guns ablazin', advocating for taxpayer-funded bigotry.

Again, there is a compelling state interest in the long term unions between men and women as they normally result in offspring. The same compelling interest CAN NOT be produced with a same sex union. At that point, the only reason a government would be getting involved would be an acknowledgement of emotion on the part of those involved. Not a compelling state interest if you ask me and accusations of bigotry make little sense but I'm sure they make you feel better.

[OldManMac]

No one is suggesting that the long term state interest of procreation and carrying on the human race be dissolved, but that doesn't stop you from using that specious argument, although it no doubt makes you feel better. That's one of the most tired arguments in this debate; as if two men or two women, who happen to be part of a tiny minority, getting married somehow diminishes the capacity of the human race to procreate. Two gay people getting married has no effect whatsoever on the marriages of any other couple, unless such couple chooses to allow them to.

It's going to happen whether you go down screaming, kicking, and biting, and the world won't come to an end, and John and Mary can still screw their brains out, have 1.4 children, and get a nasty divorce, because John cheated on Mary, or Mary cheated on John, and the cycle will repeat itself, and somewhere along the line the gays will get blamed for the disillusionment in marriage (which is really the underlying crux of this issue).

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Tiresias 

Thanks for the warning. I'll be sure to steer clear of you

[selowitch]

Stupendousman, I'm really struggling here to understand your (counter-)arguments here. You seem to be saying that gay marriage should be prohibited because it's never been allowed before, which is giving tradition and custom far too much weight. It used to be they didn't allow blacks to live as free people, to own property, or to marry whites. Does the mere fact of it having been done for a long time automatically make it right?

I agree that, as far as the state is concerned, marriage isn't really about love but about legal matters, e.g., child custody, inheritance, divorce, probate law, etc. but to me, the mere fact that one's chosen partner is of what one might consider the incorrect gender does not empower the government to discriminate against you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No one is suggesting that the long term state interest of procreation and carrying on the human race be dissolved, but that doesn't stop you from using that specious argument, although it no doubt makes you feel better.

It's not my argument that allowing people of the same sex to do the same will dissolve it. It's clear you either don't understand my argument, or do and are creating a strawman.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

You seem to be saying that gay marriage should be prohibited because it's never been allowed before, which is giving tradition and custom far too much weight.

Nope.

I agree that, as far as the state is concerned, marriage isn't really about love but about legal matters, e.g., child custody, inheritance, divorce, probate law, etc. but to me, the mere fact that one's chosen partner is of what one might consider the incorrect gender does not empower the government to discriminate against you.

Point. Missed.

"Marriage" is not about "legal matters". It's about a societal construct put together in order to provide affirmative community action to try ensure people who are in long term unions which normally produce offspring stay together. This is done via various legal mechanisms provided by the government. The same set of criteria are not present during same sex unions and therefore there isn't the same state interest to provide an affirmative action. In other words, it's not as important for people who never have offspring to be kept together in a long-term union as it is for those who do. The compelling state interest is vested in the new life created. This same interest simply is not inherent in same sex unions.

I do however see a compelling interest in providing new legal mechanisms for people who wish to name heirs or 'next of kin" who are not related by marriage. This would benefit not only same sex couples, but platonic opposite sex care givers for people who have no other family as well.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Marriage" is not about "legal matters". It's about a societal construct put together in order to provide affirmative community action to try ensure people who are in long term unions which normally produce offspring stay together. This is done via various legal mechanisms provided by the government. The same set of criteria are not present during same sex unions and therefore there isn't the same state interest to provide an affirmative action. In other words, it's not as important for people who never have offspring to be kept together in a long-term union as it is for those who do. The compelling state interest is vested in the new life created. This same interest simply is not inherent in same sex unions.

I do however see a compelling interest in providing new legal mechanisms for people who wish to name heirs or 'next of kin" who are not related by marriage. This would benefit not only same sex couples, but platonic opposite sex care givers for people who have no other family as well.

It doesn't provide an "affirmative action" if a married heterosexual couple doesn't produce children either. Another fallacious argument, which you conveniently use to attempt to bolster your argument. Keep grasping at straws.

Until such time as a homosexual couple has all of the rights as a married couple, we're obviously going to disagree. Fortunately, that time will come sooner than you want it to.

[selowitch]

Bah. I'm tired of this circular argumentation. Either homosexuals are human beings equal before the law (and therefore may marry) or they can't. My position is the former, and I really don't see much middle ground.

I don't think marriage's sole purpose is procreation, and if the government comes to that conclusion or makes that assumption, why should I give a murine posterior? Marriage is what we, the people, make of it and what rights it affords us under constitutional and/or statutory law, period. It certainly isn't up to stupendousman or anybody else to tell us what our marriages mean. For some, marriage is to some degree a spiritual/ecclesiastical event that is necessarily tied to a particular house of worship, theology, or officiant. For others, marriage is a deep, solemnized friendship.

Come to think of it, no two couples are likely to describe their marriage in precisely identical terms (especially if they are given more than 30 seconds to give their description). This attempt to rigidly compartmentalize the human experience is exactly one of functions for which government is extremely poorly suited.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Marriage" is not about "legal matters". It's about a societal construct put together in order to provide affirmative community action to try ensure people who are in long term unions which normally produce offspring stay together.

Mere assertion, and one that is easily refuted. There is no attempt made to see that there's any chance the marriage will result in children. Two 60-year-olds of opposite sex do not normally produce offspring, but they are allowed to get married. Moreover, marriage law does not mandate or even suggest that a couple have children, but it does create an orderly framework in case they do (which applies equally well to gay couples).

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It doesn't provide an "affirmative action" if a married heterosexual couple doesn't produce children either. Another fallacious argument, which you conveniently use to attempt to bolster your argument. Keep grasping at straws.

Totally untrue. Affirmative actions typically don't involve such strict means testing. For instance, wealthy minorities take advantage of racial affirmative action programs all the time, even though poorer non-minorities could better use that type of help and they don't. The thing is though that the wealthy minorities STILL fall under the category of people who GENERALLY could be THOUGHT to benefit.

Until such time as a homosexual couple has all of the rights as a married couple, we're obviously going to disagree. Fortunately, that time will come sooner than you want it to.

...or not. Until you can come up with a response that doesn't require emotional reasoning, you're likely to loose long term.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Totally untrue. Affirmative actions typically don't involve such strict means testing. For instance, wealthy minorities take advantage of racial affirmative action programs all the time, even though poorer non-minorities could better use that type of help and they don't. The thing is though that the wealthy minorities STILL fall under the category of people who GENERALLY could be THOUGHT to benefit.



...or not. Until you can come up with a response that doesn't require emotional reasoning, you're likely to loose long term.

You ought to make up your mind. First you say that marriage provides an affirmative action, and then, when it's pointed out to you that your "logic" is flawed, you say that affirmative actions don't involved strict means testing, which totally blows your silly statements out of the water. For one who is supposedly so steeped in black and white "logic," you have no consistency to your statements whatsoever. You are, again, grasping at straws to attempt to self justify your beliefs.

Back to reality, the facts are that, seven years ago, there were virtually no legal protections for same sex couples anywhere in the U. S. It is now legal in one state for them to marry, and civil unions are in place and being considered in others, as well as legislation permitting same sex partner benefits in numerous states, counties, and local municipalities. The constitutional bans on gay marriage that were approved in many states will eventually be overturned, as younger generations correctly realize that it isn't their business who marries who, and that they aren't affected if Bill marries Ken. It was primarily older people who voted these bans in place, because they are set in their ways, and plod merrily through life, not caring whom they hurt, or perhaps being so blissfully ignorant that they don't even realize they're hurting someone. A few decades from now we will look back (well, most of us will, as there are always the ignorant and hateful among us) and realize that the fearmongering, the hateful actions, and the flat out lies were all wrong, and the world isn't ending because two gay people choose to marry. The gay rights (and it is a fight for the same rights) movement has been the most successful, in terms of the time it's taken to reverse discrimination, of any movement in our history. There will be no "or not."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Mere assertion, and one that is easily refuted. There is no attempt made to see that there's any chance the marriage will result in children. Two 60-year-olds of opposite sex do not normally produce offspring, but they are allowed to get married. Moreover, marriage law does not mandate or even suggest that a couple have children, but it does create an orderly framework in case they do (which applies equally well to gay couples).

As I've explained, as long as a person can show that they belong to the general group, there very seldom is further means testing for that sort of thing.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You ought to make up your mind. First you say that marriage provides an affirmative action, and then, when it's pointed out to you that your "logic" is flawed, you say that affirmative actions don't involved strict means testing, which totally blows your silly statements out of the water.

You make no sense and I'm not sure where you got your knowledge about "logic". Most affirmative actions aren't means tested beyond whether or not the person in question fits the basic criteria of the group in question. In this case, as long as you are a man and a women entering into a long-term union (which generally always results in reproduction), you fit. Sure, you CAN further means test it, but it's neither required or necessary for the affirmative action in question to work and may be determined to be a intrusion into one's privacy.

[selowitch]

Many things annoy me about right-wing bigots, but one of the big ones is their continuous obsession with who puts what body part into which body part of another. It's unseemly and gross. What business is it of theirs? What gives them the right to know about these intimacies, much less pass judgment on them?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Bah. I'm tired of this circular argumentation. Either homosexuals are human beings equal before the law (and therefore may marry) or they can't. My position is the former, and I really don't see much middle ground.

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

False dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is this article relevant? Do you feel I've presented a false dilemma? Then prove it. Merely providing a weblink doesn't automatically prove your point. BTW, what is your point, anyway?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Many things annoy me about right-wing bigots, but one of the big ones is their continuous obsession with who puts what body part into which body part of another. It's unseemly and gross. What business is it of theirs? What gives them the right to know about these intimacies, much less pass judgment on them?

Silly name calling aside, II don't know. I myself don't care what goes where. What I'm concerned with is the ramifications of whatever people do AFTER it happens. That should be the concern of anyone who cares about the well being of society. There are different ramifications based on where you decide to put what though, and they all have some really compelling health/safety/proper nurturing aspects which the government surely has an interest in.

Here's just some of the societal interests that comes into play after it happens, and the efforts we make to ensure that the ramifications aren't negative:

-AIDS awareness programs, charities and laws regarding treatment
- Child welfare agencies tasted to ensure that offspring are well maintained.
- Marriage laws designed to ensure that when reproduction happens (and it almost always does amongst those married) that the couples have the best chance of staying together and raising their blood related offspring.
- Rape laws designed to punish predators and protect potential prey.

...and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, if "what we put where" has no bearing on society, then the government has no compelling interest in any of the items I've mentioned above.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As I've explained, as long as a person can show that they belong to the general group, there very seldom is further means testing for that sort of thing.

Yes, but that's a circular argument. "Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry." "Why not?" "Because they're not heterosexuals." "But why should only heterosexuals be allowed to marry?" "Because they're heterosexuals."

You have yet to show any good reason why the "general group" should not include homosexuals. They are about as likely to have children as an elderly couple, so capacity for childbirth is immaterial — but that is all you've brought up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

How is this article relevant? Do you feel I've presented a false dilemma? Then prove it. Merely providing a weblink doesn't automatically prove your point. BTW, what is your point, anyway?

"Either homosexuals are human beings equal before the law (and therefore may marry) or they can't. My position is the former, and I really don't see much middle ground."

A. Homosexuals can already marry any member of the opposite sex they choose to as long as their partner consents and is not a close blood relative, married and in some states passes a blood test. I understand that this is not their desire, but it doesn't make this fact any less relevant

B. A person can be equal under the law even if the things they choose to do are unequal in fact. My example concerning urinals not being in women's restrooms covers that.

So we have 2 clear logical fallacies in your "if/then" statement which make your exclusive choices actually not exclusive, therefore it's a false dilemma.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but that's a circular argument. "Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry." "Why not?" "Because they're not heterosexuals." "But why should only heterosexuals be allowed to marry?" "Because they're heterosexuals."

Not my argument at all. I've TIME AND AGAIN stated the compelling state interest that is inherent in heterosexual unions that CAN NOT be present in homosexual long-term unions. Not just that you can VISUALLY tell that the genders are the same or different, but one that has a huge impact on the development of the world we live in.

You have yet to show any good reason why the "general group" should not include homosexuals.

For the same reason that the "general group" whom your targeting for racial affirmative action should not include wealthy white people. THEY CAN NOT EVER under any circumstance be validated as a part of the group in question without even engaging in any kind of intrusion into their personal privacy. Gay couples CAN NOT reproduce, requiring them to provide a stable mother/father relationship to their blood relations. No tests are needed to determine this...no embarrassing questions. It's a biological fact. To further means test the group would require such things, and as in the case of racial affirmative action, it's unnecessary as the vast majority of those in the group in question (men and women engagin in long term unions) WILL reproduce. There are exceptions to every group. Gay unions are non-starters. It's not the exception for same-sex unions, it's the rule.

One is the exception, the other is the rule. That's a reasonable 'line in the sand' for an affirmative action. At least that sort of standard has been all that's needed in all other forms. But I understand that this isn't about fairness or equality but rather forcing people to accept unequal things as equal so that some people can feel better about themselves. I don't think that the Government should be envolved in legally binding self esteem exercises.

[selowitch]

The semantics of the issue are pretty tedious and they detract from the core moral issue: Is it in the best interests of our society to recognize gay marriages or not? My answer is yes, because the government has no right to bar them. Preventing gays from marrying amounts to religious persecution in some cases, gender discrimination in most, and it empowers government to make judgments it has no business making.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

The semantics of the issue are pretty tedious and they detract from the core moral issue: Is it in the best interests of our society to recognize gay marriages or not? My answer is yes, because the government has no right to bar them.

You can ignore the facts, and call them "semantics" all you want and it's not going to make your inability to rebut what I've said any more credible. The government most cetainly DOES have the right to bar same sex unions from getting the same treatment as opposite sex unions because the arrangements in question are UNEQUAL in what provide to society. One you have a type of union that almost always results in the creation of new members of society. In the other you have a type of union that CAN NOT as a matter of science. We are dealing with scientific facts which create inequalities you and no one else can credibly refute.

There is no "right" for unequal things to be given equal status. None. You are legally allowed to discriminate against two unequal things, especially when there's such a compelling state interest in one that does not exist in the other. You are unable to explain how one thing creating new life and in another it is impossible, is not a major inequality. That's because, it's can't be done. Not credibly, and that's why everyone who is pro "same sex marriage" always delves off into strawmen logical fallacies and avoids the real arguments all together.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You can ignore the facts, and call them "semantics" all you want and it's not going to make your inability to rebut what I've said any more credible. The government most cetainly DOES have the right to bar same sex unions from getting the same treatment as opposite sex unions because the arrangements in question are UNEQUAL in what provide to society. One you have a type of union that almost always results in the creation of new members of society. In the other you have a type of union that CAN NOT as a matter of science. We are dealing with scientific facts which create inequalities you and no one else can credibly refute.

There is no "right" for unequal things to be given equal status. None. You are legally allowed to discriminate against two unequal things, especially when there's such a compelling state interest in one that does not exist in the other. You are unable to explain how one thing creating new life and in another it is impossible, is not a major inequality. That's because, it's can't be done. Not credibly, and that's why everyone who is pro "same sex marriage" always delves off into strawmen logical fallacies and avoids the real arguments all together.

This is sheer nonsense. Rights are not granted based on "what they provide to society," they are granted based on what a human being should be entitled to in a free society. Read the Federalist Papers if you don't believe me, and if your local library in Cukooland has a copy.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

This is sheer nonsense. Rights are not granted based on "what they provide to society," they are granted based on what a human being should be entitled to in a free society.

..and there is no human being who falls into the category as wishing to engage in a union that generally adds new members of society, the benefits that such a thing is given. NONE. If you could show that the major compelling interest for state involvement is the recognition of "love", then maybe you'd have a point. Given that there's MUCH greater considerations at play, you don't really have one.

Besides, your claim is demonstrably false in other areas as well. The notion that giving people added benefits and rights due to what such a thing would 'provide to society" is the basis of all affirmative action programs supported by the federal goverment. For your claim to be true, it would invalidate all of that as well.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and there is no human being who falls into the category as wishing to engage in a union that generally adds new members of society, the benefits that such a thing is given. NONE.

Your grammar is so poor here that I can't discern a meaning. Sorry.

If you could show that the major compelling interest for state involvement is the recognition of "love", then maybe you'd have a point. Given that there's MUCH greater considerations at play, you don't really have one.

Since when did I mention love?

Besides, your claim is demonstrably false in other areas as well. The notion that giving people added benefits and rights due to what such a thing would 'provide to society" is the basis of all affirmative action programs supported by the federal goverment. For your claim to be true, it would invalidate all of that as well.

You're the one talking in terms of what one "provides to society," not me, cowboy. You're starting to argue with yourself, which, while amusing, doesn't do anything to undermine my arguments.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ... that all men are created equal." It doesn't say "all heterosexual men." I sure as hell doesn't say "all those who provide something to society" nor surely "all those likely to reproduce and create new members of society." So where does this bizarre value system you speak of exist anywhere save within your cavernously empty skull?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

..and there is no human being who falls into the category as wishing to engage in a union that generally adds new members of society, the benefits that such a thing is given. NONE. If you could show that the major compelling interest for state involvement is the recognition of "love", then maybe you'd have a point. Given that there's MUCH greater considerations at play, you don't really have one.

Besides, your claim is demonstrably false in other areas as well. The notion that giving people added benefits and rights due to what such a thing would 'provide to society" is the basis of all affirmative action programs supported by the federal goverment. For your claim to be true, it would invalidate all of that as well.

The needle on your record player is stuck in the same groove. This is a tired argument that holds no water. The fraction of homosexuals who wish to marry is minute. There are probably just as many married couples who don't want to have children, or who can't have children, so they add no value to society either, according to your convoluted attempts to spin the issue. This has nothing to do with adding productive members to society, period. That's going to happen even if heterosexual people aren't allowed to marry. As a matter of fact, the number of people marrying is declining, yet couples still have children, and that isn't something that's plastered all over the news, because it's much easier to pick on 5% of the population because they're gay, and you can point your fingers at them, blathering on an on about how immoral you perceive them to be, and you know you're going to get support from a larger percentage of the public than you would if you started pointing fingers at unmarried couples with children, as they'd correctly tell you to stick your finger where the sun doesn't shine. The ease and convenience with which any particular group can be targeted always is a determinant in which group is in fact targeted, especially for those who need to pull a splinter out of someone else's eye, while they ignore the plank in their own. The "religious" leaders of this country are undoubtedly very thankful that there are so many gullible people they can count on to help them do their dirty work, and keep them in power.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Your grammar is so poor here that I can't discern a meaning. Sorry.

It does appear that you have trouble reading given your inability to respond to my actual arguments. Is English your first language? I think I may have left out a word though. I'm pretty sure a person of average intelligence should be able to figure out the sentence and diagram it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and rephrase since it appears that name calling and grammar policing are a big part of your arsenal of debate. I know that logically rebutting any of my ACTUAL points isn't in that arsenal:

"and there is no human being who falls into the category as someone wishing to engage in a union that generally adds new members of society, the benefits that such a thing is given. NONE."

There is no human being who fits the following discription: "wishes to engage in a type of union that generally results in the addition of new members of society", that is being denied the benefits that such an endeavor is given by our government.

Still confused?

You're the one talking in terms of what one "provides to society," not me, cowboy. You're starting to argue with yourself, which, while amusing, doesn't do anything to undermine my arguments.

You've made NO arguments. You've made declarative statements and given false dilemmas. I've pointed out the inequality of the two types of unions and how there is a compelling societal interest to recognize one and not the other. You come back with name calling, confusion, bold assertions and an inability to rebut any of my actual arguments. Sometimes I wonder why I try....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident ... that all men are created equal." It doesn't say "all heterosexual men." I sure as hell doesn't say "all those who provide something to society" nor surely "all those likely to reproduce and create new members of society." So where does this bizarre value system you speak of exist anywhere save within your cavernously empty skull?

There is a compelling state interest to recognize something that results in the creation of new members of society, and it's in the interest of the state to provide affirmative action to try and ensure that these new members of society are raised in a loving home by their mother and father.

THERE IS NO SIMILAR COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TO DO SO with same sex unions as same sex unions can NEVER result in such a thing, therefore we are talking about UNEQUAL things. Not unequal people, but unequal unions and there is no RIGHT for unequal things to be treated equally. NONE.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The needle on your record player is stuck in the same groove. This is a tired argument that holds no water.

Opinion

The fraction of homosexuals who wish to marry is minute. There are probably just as many married couples who don't want to have children, or who can't have children, so they add no value to society either, according to your convoluted attempts to spin the issue.

You are talking about exceptions, not the rule. In one case, males and females that join in long term unions and DON'T procreate are the exception. Often times, people who think that they are, or always be in that category end up procreating. It's simply too big of a burden to weed out those exceptions when the "rule" is so vast. On the other hand, the only thing to recognize for same sex unions is the emotion involved. Not really a compelling state interest.

This has nothing to do with adding productive members to society, period.

Opinion

That's going to happen even if heterosexual people aren't allowed to marry. As a matter of fact, the number of people marrying is declining, yet couples still have children, and that isn't something that's plastered all over the news, because it's much easier to pick on 5% of the population because they're gay, and you can point your fingers at them, blathering on an on about how immoral you perceive them to be, and you know you're going to get support from a larger percentage of the public than you would if you started pointing fingers at unmarried couples with children, as they'd correctly tell you to stick your finger where the sun doesn't shine.

All 100% irrelevant. YES, with or without marriage, people will have sex and reproduce. What they CHOOSE to do is irrelevant to the state interest that IF THEY DO decide to engage in a long-term union, it's in the state's best interest to provide certain affirmative actions (that we as a society encourage) to make sure when they do procreate that there is a greater chance that the offspring in question will be raised by it's mother and father in a loving environment. That's the case if EVERYONE decides to get married or no one does. The fact remains that "love" isn't a compelling state interest but bringing new life into society is. The mechanisms involved revolve around irrefutable science, so I'm pretty sure that's why people dance around the issue - it's hard to refute. It's just easier to be like the lady who insisted that the woman's restroom must have a urinal in order for them to be treated equal. Demand equal rights for unequal things...

The ease and convenience with which any particular group can be targeted always is a determinant in which group is in fact targeted, especially for those who need to pull a splinter out of someone else's eye, while they ignore the plank in their own. The "religious" leaders of this country are undoubtedly very thankful that there are so many gullible people they can count on to help them do their dirty work, and keep them in power.

:yawn:

[OldManMac]

You just can't get past that "compelling state interest" nonsense without realizing there are exceptions to every rule, can you? Or, more accurately, you don't want to. Okay, you win. You can sit there in your delusional little world, and when gays get to marry, which they will, your arguments will be shown to be false.

[tie]

stupendousman, there is a state interest in not supporting discrimination. If you want to discriminate against gays, then you'll need compelling reasons for doing so. But you haven't given any reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. OldManMac is right; your type will lose this battle like all the others. And once more, the world will be a better place, despite your best efforts to put other people down. Fifty years from now, I hope you still remember this.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You just can't get past that "compelling state interest" nonsense without realizing there are exceptions to every rule, can you?

Sure there are exceptions. It's been pointed out that occasionally people who end up not offering ANY compelling state interest are given affirmative action marriage benefits. I explained the difficulty and invasion of privacy such a thing would require. I'm sorry if this is the best you can do in rebutall.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by tie 

stupendousman, there is a state interest in not supporting discrimination.

Correction: There is a state interest in not supporting IRRATIONAL discrimination. There's nothing wrong with discriminating against unequal things. it happens every day. Dumb people are discriminated against in favor of smart people for college acceptance....criminals are discriminated against in favor of law abiding citizens in having their freedom taken away. I've outlined a MAJOR way that there are inequalities in the things we are discussing. I also documented the ways that these inequalities do not have equal state interest.

If you want to discriminate against gays, then you'll need compelling reasons for doing so.

A. There is no more constitutional protection for gays than there is for short people, ugly people, smelly people or anyone else who find themselves less desirable to society.

B. I don't want to discriminate against people because they are gay. I have no problem discriminating against two people who want their chosen living arrangement to be deemed to be equal in societal interest as one where new life is likely to be created. The fact of the matter though is that the people in question HAPPEN to be gay. If you could get protection from discrimination just because you belong to a group that can not achieve the same goals as another group, then I as a short man should be able to sue for discrimination against the NBA.

But you haven't given any reasons gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Demonstrably false. You may NOT AGREE with my reason, but that doesn't mean I haven't given a reason and you surely haven't rebutted my reason with any kind of logical reply in return. You've ignored or sidestepped my reason.

OldManMac is right; your type will lose this battle like all the others. And once more, the world will be a better place, despite your best efforts to put other people down. Fifty years from now, I hope you still remember this.

IF SOCIETY decides that there is a compelling state interest down the road, that's society's option. It will no more be a "right" 50 years from now than it is now though because there is no "right" for unequal things to be treated equally. None. For all I know, polygamy and pedophilia will be legal then as well. Who knows....

[OldManMac]

I'm surprised it took you so long to get to the tired old slippery slope of pedophilia, and polygamy. I'll bet you'd be surprised to know that most child molesters are not homosexuals. As to polygamy, that's okay by me, as long as it's between consenting adults, which is an issue, among many, you no doubt have problems with as well, as it no doubt doesn't fit your compelling state interest mumbo jumbo.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

I'm surprised it took you so long to get to the tired old slippery slope of pedophilia, and polygamy.

Not my argument, simply a reply to show that anything is possible - and it is.

I'll bet you'd be surprised to know that most child molesters are not homosexuals.

I wouldn't be suprised, though I would be surprised if this conclusion is not reached with studies that label men who only have sexual relations with same sex children "heterosexual" if they've only had relationships with adults who are female. That seems to be the only research I've ever seen and it's clearly flawed and not very scientific.

Adding up all the child molesters who show a pattern of preying only on the same sex, what is the percentage as compared to those who either molest both sexes or only the opposite sex? Is that percentage greater or less than the ratio that is guesstimated by experts (2-7% I think) of non child molesting homosexuals? I've never seen that data compiled, and THAT is what would need to be determined if homosexuals are more or less likely to be child molesters. For example, if 30% of the sample only molested members of their own sex and 70% either molested the opposite sex or both sexes, then homosexuals ARE more likely to be child molesters as a percentage of their population than heterosexuals. I don't have the numbers myself and wouldn't respond (or make any kind of accusation or develop a personal conclusion) either way without them.

As to polygamy, that's okay by me, as long as it's between consenting adults, which is an issue, among many, you no doubt have problems with as well, as it no doubt doesn't fit your compelling state interest mumbo jumbo.

When you can logically refute my "mumbo jumbo", let me know.

[- - e r i k - -]

Well, since you base your conclusion on their "CHOSEN" sexuality, and the fallacy that marriage is a state incentive to encourage population growth then you fail logic in the first place.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not my argument at all. I've TIME AND AGAIN stated the compelling state interest that is inherent in heterosexual unions that CAN NOT be present in homosexual long-term unions. Not just that you can VISUALLY tell that the genders are the same or different, but one that has a huge impact on the development of the world we live in.

And I've shown time and again that the law does not make these delineations. Your "compelling state interest" is more like a perfunctory excuse.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For the same reason that the "general group" whom your targeting for racial affirmative action should not include wealthy white people. THEY CAN NOT EVER under any circumstance be validated as a part of the group in question without even engaging in any kind of intrusion into their personal privacy.

Neither can the elderly. You can produce no reason why gays should be excluded if the elderly aren't.

[Tiresias]

I think we can all agree that homosexuality is gay.

[smacintush]

Well I have always maintained neutrality in regards to gay marriage. I just never bought the ideas from either side about the impact on our society.

Now, thanks to Stupendousman, I have been tipped. He has given a clear and concise argument which provided me with the logical reasoning as well as the facts I needed to commit on this issue.








I am now pro gay marriage.

Thanks.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

The joy being eternal part.

Again, happiness is a fleeting feeling. You can be happy one minute, and sad the next. Joy is different altogether. You can be sad, yet be joyful at the same time in knowing where you stand. For example, some people think once you become a Christian you are binded by all these "rules" and you are just "sheep" and not really "Free"

This is simply not true. I've lived both lives. The secular humanism and not religious one, and a religious one (to the best of my abilities of course) The latter I have not felt more free in my entire life. I am not bound by worldly objects or desires like I used to be. Life is a bit more simpler. More peaceful. At ease with oneself.

These things I am "not allowed" to do don't bother me. Why? I have no desire to do them.They are tokens for the real thing.

I've been happy, and I have experienced Joy. I know the difference between happiness and joy. None of which makes what you said make any sense.

Well obviously you've not experienced the joy I am referring to. Or else it WOULD make sense to you. I know at one time in my life, I wouldn't have understood it either. Now, this is not me belittling you as if you aren't able to understand it.YOU ARE! Anyone is. It's your intentions that matter. What is in your heart. And you can't deceive the one that brings such joy to you. I've seen people under the influence of about every drug there is to mankind. You name it, I've either experienced it, or been around when people were doing it. Those are just tokens for the real thing. There are other intoxicants out there that leave you no hangover. That are not illegal. That WILL enlighten. And it's nothing you can buy. (Caution: it may cause you to speak in languages you've never spoken in before)

I understand the words that you are saying, but I understand that what you are saying (as a phrase) makes no sense.

I assure you. It makes all the sense in the world. Does it makes sense in a secular sense? No. But this isn't secular. It's supernatural.

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

THAT'S intolerance for you, Kevin.

Don't recall Doofy ever claiming to be tolerant. My rant against tolerance is those that claim to be so, rarely practice it, or even know what it is.

For example, calling a Christian a "homophobe" just because of Christianity's belief about homosexual sex is not only dishonest, it's intolerant. As such belief isn't based of a phobia or fear. That doesn't mean you have to accept their beliefs as being legit. You can still be tolerant and not accept their beliefs. But by calling them names to belittle them or their beliefs you are indeed being intolerant.

Christians are no intolerant to gays than they are heterosexuals. According to Christian teachings, NONE, I repeat NONE of us are better than anyone else. We all equally suck the same amount.

But God did give us a loophole. One anyone here is free to use. But they have to make that choice.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Well, since you base your conclusion on their "CHOSEN" sexuality, and the fallacy that marriage is a state incentive to encourage population growth then you fail logic in the first place.

I never said "chosen sexuality" or that it was to ENCOURAGE population GROWTH. Sorry. Please follow the discussion more closely if you choose to participate.

NEXT!

(patiently waiting the next strawman to knock down.....)

[stupendousman]

double post

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And I've shown time and again that the law does not make these delineations. Your "compelling state interest" is more like a perfunctory excuse.

The law doesn't have to state those delineations for "marriage" anymore than racial affirmative action laws have to specifically state why it is a good thing to encourage racial diversity. Both are obvious features based the nature of the affirmative action in question.

Neither can the elderly. You can produce no reason why gays should be excluded if the elderly aren't.

Already covered and refuted multiple times without credible rebutal. Please follow the thread if you want to participate. Especially where I've used the racial discrimination means testing examples to show that there's no need to exclude the tiny percentage of people who might be exceptions to the rule where you'd have to require expensive medical testing and/or intrusive invasions of privacy in order to achieve the means testing in question. No testing is required to exclude gay unions from the group in question the same as you wouldn't have to test a man and a dog...or a woman and a tree or any other grouping which could NEVER provide the same level in compelling interest. NEXT!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Already covered and refuted multiple times without credible rebutal. Please follow the thread if you want to participate. Especially where I've used the racial discrimination means testing examples to show that there's no need to exclude the tiny percentage of people who might be exceptions to the rule where you'd have to require expensive medical testing and/or intrusive invasions of privacy in order to achieve the means testing in question.

No. determining age isn't any harder or more invasive than determining sex. They have to provide both if they want a marriage license. We choose not to discriminate against couples that can't have children even though we can easily identify them — except in the case of gays. Why make gays an exception here? Let's include gays in the list of nonreproductive couples who are still in the program and have done with it. There! Problem solved! Objecting on the basis that they can't have children isn't valid, since we've already agreed that it's OK to make your criteria fuzzy enough to accept couples who obviously won't reproduce.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Now, thanks to Stupendousman, I have been tipped. He has given a clear and concise argument which provided me with the logical reasoning as well as the facts I needed to commit on this issue.

I am now pro gay marriage.

Thanks.

Get a room.

[0157988944]

Seriously. You wonder why you got an infraction? Have you contributed anything here except "jokes"?