[ghporter]

I think the concept of "uncontrollable desires" (as opposed to strong attraction/strong aversion) is an important one here. I would love to be able to just DO stuff, but I have an inherent quantity of self control that keeps me from doing things like blurting out "holy cow, look at the honker on that person!" or groping an attractive woman. My desires are under control because I am mentally "healthy" enough to manage them. Sure, I'll have a scoop of ice cream that I probably "shouldn't" have, but that choice is a conscious decision, actively made.

A person with "uncontrollable urges" would probably qualify as one with (to use a legal term) "diminished faculties," such as a person who kills in the heat of rage. That doesn't excuse the act. A person who preys on children for sexual purposes may actually have little control over his actions. That would be what I would investigate as a "mental illness." A lack of impulse control is a feature of many psychiatric disorders. Thus the actual focus of the "uncontrollable urges" is really irrelevant in a psychiatric sense, though it has a lot to do with the legal consequences of the individual's actions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think the concept of "uncontrollable desires" (as opposed to strong attraction/strong aversion) is an important one here. I would love to be able to just DO stuff, but I have an inherent quantity of self control that keeps me from doing things like blurting out "holy cow, look at the honker on that person!" or groping an attractive woman. My desires are under control because I am mentally "healthy" enough to manage them.

What's uncontrollable is that it's a woman you want to grope.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

They've both been discussed in this multi-page thread as examples of differences between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I'm saying consent (or lack thereof) is a difference, while quantified aberration isn't.

I can't tell if you're trying to distinguish the two as independent arguments (as I am), one of which is perfectly valid while the other is not, or whether you're trying to execute a poisoning the well fallacy by bringing up the false argument in response to the valid one, the only connection being that they both emanate from the same side of the debate. If not the latter, what purpose is there in raising the topic of an invalid argument (one we apparently both already acknowledged is invalid) in response to a post that didn't mention that argument? Just curious

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It will still boil down to moralists VS relativists. The arguments against the moralists on the topic of homosexuality will be equally as viable on any other host of behavioral phenomena.

Maybe I'm too far gone and there's nothing left for me to relativize, but I can't wrap my head around this.

Other than the possibility it is and/or is caused by mental illness, what exactly is the (moralist) argument against homosexuality?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think the concept of "uncontrollable desires" (as opposed to strong attraction/strong aversion) is an important one here. I would love to be able to just DO stuff, but I have an inherent quantity of self control that keeps me from doing things like blurting out "holy cow, look at the honker on that person!" or groping an attractive woman. My desires are under control because I am mentally "healthy" enough to manage them. Sure, I'll have a scoop of ice cream that I probably "shouldn't" have, but that choice is a conscious decision, actively made.

A person with "uncontrollable urges" would probably qualify as one with (to use a legal term) "diminished faculties," such as a person who kills in the heat of rage. That doesn't excuse the act. A person who preys on children for sexual purposes may actually have little control over his actions. That would be what I would investigate as a "mental illness." A lack of impulse control is a feature of many psychiatric disorders. Thus the actual focus of the "uncontrollable urges" is really irrelevant in a psychiatric sense, though it has a lot to do with the legal consequences of the individual's actions.

Ok, granted that some/many pedophiles experience the inability to control their urges, do you think there are other pedophiles that are able to control their urges, and if so does simply having those urges constitute a mental illness? If there was a person who behaved and thought entirely within the norm, with only one exception that they were physically attracted to children instead of adults, would this person be a mentally ill deviant? In other words, if the only difference between a particular well-adjusted happy homosexual and a particular pedophile was whom they were attracted to, rather than the manner in which they acted on that attraction, would you say that the pedophile was also "well-adjusted," or would you say the pedophile was still mentally ill? I think that's the question.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If not the latter, what purpose is there in raising the topic of an invalid argument (one we apparently both already acknowledged is invalid) in response to a post that didn't mention that argument? Just curious

I wasn't sure you had acknowledged it when I made the post. I was also grouping you in with Glenn, who if I'm reading right, hasn't acknowledged it.

I should definitely say again, the problem is me making a bad inference.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

would you say that the pedophile was also "well-adjusted," or would you say the pedophile was still mentally ill? I think that's the question.

He's stated that one can collect child pornography and not meet the definition of mentally ill (given the definition, an assessment I agree with).

I can't speak for well-adjusted.


[Sorry Glenn, I'm impatient. Not that you need my permission to layeth the smackdown if I misrepresenteth, on top of that you haveth my invitation.]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok then, what if the non-mentally-ill pedophile can find a 15-year-old to consent to him/her (like Chongo's grandfather did)? If that's A-Ok, then don't pedophilia prohibitions discriminate against this person?

--

My answer is that they do, but the injustice of this discrimination is heavily mitigated by the fact that all they have to do is wait 3 years before they can spend the rest of their lives together. Homos can't just wait it out, so the injustice of prohibiting the legitimacy of their relationship is worse. Exceptions, though: if the older person is so old that they won't last 3 more years; or if the older person will no longer be attracted to the younger after they grow up. Opinions?

Edit: on topic. I think we can all agree that the boundaries and exceptions regarding homosexuality are far simpler and more transparent (less nebulous, to use ebuddy's term) than those regarding pedophilia. Even if the slippery slope can justifiably be applied to pedophilia (and I'm not sure that it can), all it means is that some legitimately unjust over-protective limitations on pedophilia might be eased. It would absolutely not lead to abandoning all restrictions on pedophilia.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Disability laws aren't dealing with "equal societal interest" either, but they are still considered to be concerned with "equal rights." You don't have a leg to stand on with this argument.

I think it's in society's interest to make small adjustments in order to allow people to do what they otherwise could have done without a disability which they can not help. There are limits to that which we as a society have to bend in order to help in that endeavor though.

No amount of "small adjustment" will allow homosexual unions to be able to provide that which causes the abundant societal interest caused by the basic human biology that happens with heterosexual couples. It's not a matter of homosexuals having been able to do something if not for some small adjustment that's not their fault- they can't and never could. It's not much different then not forcing NBA teams to hire people in wheelchairs to play on the team every night.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, granted that some/many pedophiles experience the inability to control their urges, do you think there are other pedophiles that are able to control their urges, and if so does simply having those urges constitute a mental illness?

I believe that there are pedophiles who can control their desires. I believe that they still are suffering from an illness. It's no different than an alcoholic who isn't currently drinking still being an alcoholic. The illness doesn't just go away - it's just under control. If you are a pedophile and choose to look at underage porn as a way to control your behavior, you are still imbued with the unnatural desire in question. You are just controlling it. If you have an unnatural desire to commit murder, are you not suffering from mental illness just because you haven't killed anyone yet due to your ability to control that desire? I don't think so.

I believe that if we are looking at the way we define how we think or what we do, any time our brain works in a way that would cause us to do undesirable things that the majority do not do, is rationally a mental illness. The question is, what is "undesirable"? Many people don't classify homosexuality as "undesirable" because their belief structure does not lead them to conclude that homosexuality is morally wrong. The problem lies in basing the designation on personal morality which has no basis in science.

Personally, I'm pretty sure that a state of mind which if it existed in all humans would result in the extinction of our species, but which only currently effects a very small percentage of the population should rationally be considered a mental illness. In addition to having a strong attraction to the opposite sex, humans also seem innately imbued with the desire to reproduce - and I don't think that's only limited to heterosexuals. Otherwise, you wouldn't see all of the gay people buying babies or finding people to artificially impregnate them outside their monogamous unions. An inability to completely satisfy this desire with the person who you love sure is one that would seem to cause frustration and grief that wouldn't exist if the person in question was a heterosexual. It would seem that homosexuality is a state of being which causes societal problems above and beyond traditional moral value judgements and as such should be viewed as an illness.

The question then remains as to whether there's a moral imperative to "correct" the illness or accept someone with the illness for who they are. Here's where pedophilia and homosexuality differ. Homosexuality typically involves consent, where pedophilia does not. One does no harm to a third party, while the other seeks to do so. People afflicted with either can choose to accept who they are and not seek help in controlling their desires, but if the pedophile doesn't, he's likely to end up in jail due to his violating the rights of others.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think it's in society's interest to make small adjustments in order to allow people to do what they otherwise could have done without a disability which they can not help.

How is unbanning gay marriage not a small adjustment to allow people to do what they otherwise could have done had they not been gay, marry the person they actually want to?

Aside, I dispute the addendum "which they can not help." Disabled veterans could have "helped" becoming disabled by being conscientious objectors, but I highly doubt you think they should be denied handicap benefits because of that reason.

No amount of "small adjustment" will allow homosexual unions to be able to provide that which causes the abundant societal interest caused by the basic human biology that happens with heterosexual couples.

They already have adoptions, and sperm donors, even without marriage. Granting marriage would allow them the exact same benefits that marriage gives to hetero couples. You don't need to be married to reproduce, that much is abundantly clear.

It's not a matter of homosexuals having been able to do something if not for some small adjustment that's not their fault- they can't and never could.

And yet, they already do.

It's not much different then not forcing NBA teams to hire people in wheelchairs to play on the team every night.

But society does provide the special olympics, where people in wheelchairs actually do play basketball. You're so far off base it's downright comical.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Personally, I'm pretty sure that a state of mind which if it existed in all humans would result in the extinction of our species, but which only currently effects a very small percentage of the population should rationally be considered a mental illness.

Bunk.

For one thing, it sounds like you think homosexuality is contagious.

Let me ask you this: do you think abstinence is a mental illness? Being a catholic priest? Being a catholic priest with a vow of celibacy is a state of mind, and if it existed in all humans it would result in the extinction of our species. Are you going to call that a mental illness, or are you going to admit your whole argument is bunk?

In addition to having a strong attraction to the opposite sex, humans also seem innately imbued with the desire to reproduce - and I don't think that's only limited to heterosexuals. Otherwise, you wouldn't see all of the gay people buying babies or finding people to artificially impregnate them outside their monogamous unions.

It could be a desire to reproduce, or it could be just a desire for companionship. To quote Scrubs, having a baby is like having a dog that learns to talk.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I know nobody else reads these longer posts, but your questions deserve answers ebuddy, so here they are.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I maintain that the disagreement is whether or not homosexuality stems from mental illness. I don't think "bigoted" is an apt term for opposing legislation that includes the mentally ill in a federal privilege.

You don't? I'll try to draw the most generous comparison possible here (if you have a better one please give it), comparing apples to apples and marriages to marriages, if someone was opposed to letting narcoleptics or schizophrenics get married because of their conditions, you wouldn't consider that bigoted? I would. Here's a more apt question, if someone wanted to outlaw marriage between schizophrenics specifically because of specious reasoning like they claimed schizophrenia was an STD or that schizophrenics were considered evildoers by their religion, you wouldn't consider that bigoted? I would.

I think a poll is in order and if I get some time I'll draft one. I'd be willing to bet the results would show (in the least) a strong correlation between the degree of acceptance and the genetic viewpoint.

I will if you don't.

No, it doesn't. Many feel that allowing gay marriage establishes some validation for a mental illness;

How is "validation for a mental illness" a bad thing? Veterans for example have been struggling to get validation for PTSD for decades. Recently, they finally are getting it, and you would condemn them for it?

that as such it is an affront to a socially normalized institution of "marriage", that it skews the perception of children, and produces subtle victimization of society through the slippery slope of relativism.

By the slippery slope fallacy, all change is bad, everything must be "conserved" exactly as it is, which is why it's not surprisingly a mainstay of "conservatism." But if it were true, there would be no ongoing need for a legislature... I guess that's why they call it a fallacy. The slippery slope can sometimes be accurate for specific instances, but you cannot generalize it to non-specific, nebulous ideas like "moral relativism."

Disagreement with themselves?

No, with each other

You can tout that you like to drink, prefer to hang out with drunks because they're more fun, and still deny alcoholism

False analogy. "Social drinking" isn't akin to gay pride, it's akin to a lady saying she's not a lesbian even though she likes to make out with other ladies. If you wanted to compare alcoholism to gay pride, your example would have to be proud of their alcoholism, not deny it.

I wouldn't say you "lack" a definition as much as you lack consistency.

I've consistently said that gay marriage is a victimless "crime" but pedophilia is not. The same way BDSM is victimless but rape is not.

race is race. mental illness is mental illness. Society regards them differently.

Red herring. Society doesn't discriminate either race or mental illness when granting marriage. The only exception singled out for discrimination here is homosexuality.

The irony of me? I'm not even sure what this means.

That's what makes it funny

It seems you're working from the premise that you've established some factual evidence of bigotry while I am not working from that premise.

It seemed you were working from the premise that you had established some factual evidence that I call anyone who disagrees with me "bigot."

I choose to disagree with them (on this issue) because they are being bigots, not vice versa. Your fallacy here is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc, or correlation implies causation.

Your inability to follow the flow of a conversation should not be mistaken for me floundering. I prefaced the entire discussion with a definition of "bigot" because it seemed to me this was in order. I then indicated why ad hom is not intended to engage discourse, but to silence with the full statement; You're a bigot against anyone who disagrees with you. You attempt to silence them with bully tactics and "rules" that are vague.

What you did was engage in blatant hypocrisy. You maintain even now that identifying someone as a bigot is somehow a bully tactic to silence others (which I don't concede it is), yet that didn't stop you from calling me one. You then proceeded to declare that you "never called anyone names," which of course you did do. Now you're hung up on it being an ad hom, which it isn't, because I'm not attacking bigots, I'm only scorning the act of bigotry. The fact that those who engage in bigotry happen to be bigots is an irrelevant tautology. I would not dismiss a bigot's non-bigoted arguments if they were reasonable.

Unless of course words don't matter and we just throw around "bigot" for a little quick attention.

Hey, you're the one who used it first. I am just following your lead. Do you want to switch to "prejudice," "intolerance" or "zealotry?"

You've argued "victimization", but that's a societal construct that could easily be linked to some bigoted, antiquated Biblical principle.

Apparently I've been trying to reinvent the wheel in this, as what you're doing is an established fallacy called Loki's wager, "the insistence that a concept cannot be defined and therefore cannot be discussed." Even without a definition of "victimization," you can't deny that it exists nor even that it exists outside of Judeo-Christian theology. A sense of victimization has even been scientifically demonstrated in chimps and dogs.

Aren't laws themselves often designed to assuage fear, uncertainty, and doubt? Why is this immediately a reprehensible notion?

FUD is not reprehensible, it's just not the least bit convincing. This is the same misunderstanding you have with the label "bigot." I don't hate bigots, I'm not even intolerant of bigots, I just don't find them convincing when they make arguments based from their bigotry.

I would argue that bigotry against those of other races enjoyed quite a period of absolute insanity in this country. Unless you think owning people as property, whipping them to a bloody pulp, and selling them on auction blocks is sane.

Slavery is perfectly sane. It's cruel, it's greedy, it's arguably evil, but it's not insane.

We're talking about a much simpler issue here. We're not talking about separate bathrooms, separate seating arrangements at restaurants, separate schools, transportation; leading to poorer funding and accommodation of the "black-only" facilities. I've established this with the California code earlier.

The motivation is the same for both: prejudice. It's also the same reason for the poorer quality of the African American "separate" facilities. I see no reason to think that the quality of gays' "separate" benefits won't decline just as the African Americans' did, do you? If so, what reason?

I've given you reasons. You're confusing "those who oppose gays" with "those who don't support gay marriage". They simply feel there is no compelling reason to grant federal privilege to validate a mental illness.

I'm not confusing them. You just attributed it to me.

I think bigots are generally more apparent and lack credibility.

No, it's bigoted arguments that lack credibility. If you are claiming that bigots lack credibility that would be an ad hom.

Are there others with particular reasons to support affirmative action? Absolutely. They are not bigoted. Are all who oppose gay marriage against homosexuality altogether? Certainly not. They simply oppose gay marriage.

It's not bigotry if it is based in reason, rather than prejudice (unless the reason itself is prejudiced, like the schizophrenia hypothetical I gave above). You have stated that even if there exists no reason to support their opposition that doesn't make their opposition bigotry, but it most certainly does. The pertinent distinction is reason vs prejudice.

There's a big leap from; "I personally support gay marriage" to "those who don't are bigoted".

Yes, it is a big leap, and that leap is bridged by the fact that those who oppose it are doing so out of prejudice, as evidenced by the face that they have no reason for doing so.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I would argue that bigotry against those of other races enjoyed quite a period of absolute insanity in this country. Unless you think owning people as property, whipping them to a bloody pulp, and selling them on auction blocks is sane.

Are you using "sanity" in its legal sense, or you using it as another term for "mentally ill"?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Personally, I'm pretty sure that a state of mind which if it existed in all humans would result in the extinction of our species...

I can see it now...

"All the time, it was... We finally really did it... You Maniacs! You gayed it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"

 

[Uncle Skeleton]

Hawt.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How is unbanning gay marriage not a small adjustment to allow people to do what they otherwise could have done had they not been gay, marry the person they actually want to?

Because "marriage" has never just been having a long term union with "the person they actually want to". I don't believe that the government has been endorsing love and emotion all these years. Absent a system that normally ends up causing reproduction and the rights and responsibilities that comes with that, there's really not that much of a need for government involvement. The government does not need to provide an affirmative action to get people to be attracted to one another, or to want to spend a lot of time together. They do however have an interest in seeing to it that if these people are men and women (given that the norm in these situations is eventual reproduction - planned or otherwise) that they stay together long term to care for their biological offspring. There is no "small adjustment" which would put homosexuals into this category. They simply CAN'T meet the criteria in question by any means.

They already have adoptions, and sperm donors, even without marriage.

Then the question is whether it is in society's best interest to encourage people to buy babies or use artificial means which would purposely deny a child a mother or father as a conscience choice. I think most people would say that while it shouldn't necessarily be made illegal, we shouldn't be doing anything to encourage that behavior either.

But society does provide the special olympics, where people in wheelchairs actually do play basketball. You're so far off base it's downright comical.

"Civil Unions" are the special olympics of marriage, which is why I support them.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Then the question is whether it is in society's best interest to encourage people to buy babies or use artificial means which would purposely deny a child a mother or father as a conscience choice. I think most people would say that while it shouldn't necessarily be made illegal, we shouldn't be doing anything to encourage that behavior either.

Why do you see a child having a mother and father as better than having two mothers? or two fathers?

And remember, when I asked this question previously your reply relied on the assertion that opposite-sex parents are better because they teach children "natural gender roles". Except, as we all know, gender roles are social constructs and not at all "natural". Sex roles* are natural--as either a provider of sperm or a provider of an egg--but gender roles are constructed by the society/culture.

*And absent any medical/physiological problem homosexual men and women are as capable of fulfilling this function as heterosexual men and women. Being homosexual does not make a person lose the ability to produce sperm or create eggs. Being homosexual does not make a person any more or less interested in having or producing offspring.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Civil Unions" are the special olympics of marriage, which is why I support them.

How would you structure civil unions as to avoid the issue of civil unions affirming the same thing marriage is affirming?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Because "marriage" has never just been having a long term union with "the person they actually want to". I don't believe that the government has been endorsing love and emotion all these years.

Endorsing love may not have been the original intention, but that is exactly what the government has been doing for a long long time.
Marriage was once just about property and dowries, later on it became about offspring, and in modern times it's about emotions. Things change, and the law changes with them. That's what the constitution and the founding of this country are all about.

Absent a system that normally ends up causing reproduction and the rights and responsibilities that comes with that, there's really not that much of a need for government involvement. The government does not need to provide an affirmative action to get people to be attracted to one another, or to want to spend a lot of time together.

They don't need an affirmative action to get people to screw either!
But given that the government is already providing an affirmative action to get people to be attracted to one another, giving it out unequally is prejudice.

They do however have an interest in seeing to it that if these people are men and women (given that the norm in these situations is eventual reproduction - planned or otherwise) that they stay together long term to care for their biological offspring.

That horse has left the barn. That can't be the true reason you oppose gay marriage when you don't make even the slightest effort to stop heteros from doing the same thing.

"Civil Unions" are the special olympics of marriage, which is why I support them.

That's great, except it undermines all the rest of your alleged "logic." How do any of the false rationalizations you gave above apply to marriage but not civil unions?

[Chongo]

Get a living trust/will and a medical PoA, and avoid the IRS marriage penalty. If not mentioned already, the "historic" couple in MA divorced. (they separated in less than a year)
From an unbiased source
Julie, Hillary Goodridge To Divorce, Couple Led Gay Marriage Fight In Massachusetts

[Dakar V]

Is divorce some kind of benchmark for validity to the right of marriage?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why do you see a child having a mother and father as better than having two mothers? or two fathers?

I see it as having better potential. Men and women are different. Different in how they solve problems, different in how they react to things and different in a whole host of areas. I think that when you have a mother/father/child unit, you not only keep together a natural biological building block, but you also give children the opportunity to have positive male and female parental role models.

How exactly can a daughter learn from her father what it's like to be a woman? How will the dad empathize with her when she gets her first period? It's not that a child can't survive or would be incapable of growing up healthy without diverse gender role models in home, but it does put them at a disadvantage it would seem. Not something that should be encouraged via affirmative actions by the government.

And remember, when I asked this question previously your reply relied on the assertion that opposite-sex parents are better because they teach children "natural gender roles". Except, as we all know, gender roles are social constructs and not at all "natural". Sex roles* are natural--as either a provider of sperm or a provider of an egg--but gender roles are constructed by the society/culture.

I'm pretty sure that's a myth that has been pretty thoroughly squashed. Experiments where done more than 20 years ago, trying to separate sex from gender roles with horrible results.

David

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

How would you structure civil unions as to avoid the issue of civil unions affirming the same thing marriage is affirming?

It doesn't "affirm" anything. I'm assuming a "civil union" is a legal contract signed, notarized, etc. It doesn't require love, doesn't even require any kind of non-platonic relationships (straight non-relatives who want to pass on "next of kin" rights should be able to get them too). It's simply a contract signed which makes it easier to assign certain rights to people who aren't blood relatives.

I think that everyone should have that right. I think that there are instances where this makes a lot of sense for society. Non just for gay people but as I stated before, there are a couple of widows who live together (non-sexually) near me. They do it to save on expenses and also because they have no other close "next of kin" to rely on that are still alive. I think it would be a good idea to have a mechanism that isn't "marriage" to allow them to join their assets and various power of attorney rights without having to hire a lawyer and go through a bunch of paper work.

Would these people have pretty much the same legal arrangement as people who are "married"? Pretty much, but I still don't think it would provide the same "affirmative action" as we give those who DO marry and end up with offspring. It lacks the societal importance we bestow upon people getting together, building new families. Once married people start reproducing, an entirely different set of affirmative actions, rules and regulations kick in and it has little to nothing to do with a signed contract and that adds another layer to the "marriage" affirmative action.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Endorsing love may not have been the original intention, but that is exactly what the government has been doing for a long long time.

No, I don't think it has. Marriage has always held the same basic societal interest in regards to what happens to people who get together in long-term male/female unions. Government has an interest in seeing to it that families (man/woman/child) stay together if for no other reason than to help ensure that the government doesn't end up having to take responsibility for the raising of a child abandoned by it's parents, or needing financial assistance because it's raised by a single parent unable to meet the child's financial needs on their own. Absent that, it has no real interest in the matter.

Marriage was once just about property and dowries, later on it became about offspring, and in modern times it's about emotions.

I'm not sure when marriage has not been about offspring. Even when there was a added emphasis on things like property, sex still did occur. You might not have gotten to choose your sex partner, but it happened and offspring where produced and heirs created.

They don't need an affirmative action to get people to screw either!
But given that the government is already providing an affirmative action to get people to be attracted to one another, giving it out unequally is prejudice.

The attraction is there naturally. The desire to screw is there naturally. What isn't always there is the desire to KEEP being attractive and screw as time progresses and we give special "marriage" affirmative actions to try to ensure that men and women stay together as partners long-term so that any offspring that are created are raised by it's biological parents.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Once married people start reproducing, an entirely different set of affirmative actions, rules and regulations kick in and it has little to nothing to do with a signed contract and that adds another layer to the "marriage" affirmative action.

Unless I'm missing something, those affirmative actions, rules and regulations for parents "kick in" regardless of whether the parents are married or not. Red herring.

Your whole post boils down to "civil unions can be used by people who aren't in love," but the same is true of hetero marriages. Red herring times two.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, I don't think it has. Marriage has always held the same basic societal interest in regards to what happens to people who get together in long-term male/female unions.

Revisionist wishful thinking

Government has an interest in seeing to it that families (man/woman/child) stay together if for no other reason than to help ensure that the government doesn't end up having to take responsibility for the raising of a child abandoned by it's parents, or needing financial assistance because it's raised by a single parent unable to meet the child's financial needs on their own. Absent that, it has no real interest in the matter.

1, you argue out one side of your mouth that the government is scrambling to find homes for all the unwanted children by pushing their parents to stay together, while you argue from the other side that the demand for spare children is so high that homos are "buying" them up. Cognitive dissonance much?
2, if the government has no real interest besides the children, then what's the harm? Gays won't be cranking out offspring either way, so why should society care if they want to join in the joy/misery of marriage as they see it?

The attraction is there naturally. The desire to screw is there naturally. What isn't always there is the desire to KEEP being attractive and screw as time progresses and we give special "marriage" affirmative actions to try to ensure that men and women stay together as partners long-term so that any offspring that are created are raised by it's biological parents.

That horse has left the barn. That can't be the true reason you oppose gay marriage when you don't make even the slightest effort to stop heteros from doing the same thing.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Is divorce some kind of benchmark for validity to the right of marriage?

Right or privilege?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Right or privilege?

Either way does it have any bearing?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know nobody else reads these longer posts, but your questions deserve answers ebuddy, so here they are.

I appreciate you facilitating my self indulgence.

You don't? I'll try to draw the most generous comparison possible here (if you have a better one please give it), comparing apples to apples and marriages to marriages, if someone was opposed to letting narcoleptics or schizophrenics get married because of their conditions, you wouldn't consider that bigoted?

As painful as it might be to understand, most people are like bees being swung at. On the one hand, you can't blame homosexuals for swinging at the hive and on the other, the hive is going to act defensively.

The fact that the Federal government is not accessing medical records, requesting the completion of mental health examinations, questioning the intent of marriage to birth children, or challenging parental "fitness" does not preclude the purpose of the Federal privilege or affirmative action. To your question; I would not only consider that bigoted, but I'd have to also consider the mere notion of treating narcolepsy or schizophrenia bigoted. I would insist they were born that way and I would urge the nearby school to bring their class over to the clinic or group home for a wedding. I would amass huge sums of money for lobbying "narcolepsy rights" including cots and pillows at my desk. I'd attend marches carrying posterboards depicting sleepers on roller coasters or selling "I'm seeing weird sh!t for free!" t-shirts. That's not apples to apples man that's apples to rodeo clowns. I'm not saying it's unfair, but there's a stark difference between them in what we're being asked to believe regarding their condition. Is the schizophrenic asking to marry a tree because the conversations are more meaningful? In regards to marrying one another, they are not asking society to define marriage differently and the Federal government is not testing for mental, marital, or even parental "fitness". Can gays remain unidentified as such and marry one another? I'd be willing to bet that a great many who've reached maturation having developed at least acute borderline schizophrenia can fly around quite easily under the radar. If I were the parent of a schizophrenic who was thinking of entering matrimony with another schizophrenic, I might challenge the wisdom in the thought having nothing to do with "bigotry". Chances are however that the diagnosis will come in later maturation and the subject will already be married. I couldn't in good conscience advocate divorce if the relationship was functional. With regard to a better example, we can run the gamete of other sexual preferences I suppose, but that's ludicrous of another kind.

Here's a more apt question, if someone wanted to outlaw marriage between schizophrenics specifically because of specious reasoning like they claimed schizophrenia was an STD or that schizophrenics were considered evildoers by their religion, you wouldn't consider that bigoted? I would.

If they thought schizophrenia was an STD, I'd go beyond telling them they are bigoted, I'd have to conclude they are patently stupid. Is this really an apt question in your view? Again, I would certainly challenge the wisdom of two schizophrenics entering matrimony and there would be a wealth of sound rationale for challenging it. Should zoophiles be allowed to marry chimpanzees? Wouldn't it be bigoted to deny them their right to love? There are no victims.

I will if you don't.

I'm woefully short on time and would want the poll to cover a rather broad continuum of thought. I haven't decided how to craft it. Give it a shot?

How is "validation for a mental illness" a bad thing? Veterans for example have been struggling to get validation for PTSD for decades. Recently, they finally are getting it, and you would condemn them for it?

Of course not. There are a great many homosexuals who don't want to be gay and are seeking treatment. Would you condemn them for it? Would you condemn them or any other gays for opposing gay marriage? Again, marriage is not a civil right and this issue is not one of civil rights. Over 20 states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases like in Oklahoma. Are they all bigoted? They seem to be acting in the state interest. Marriage seems to be an affirmative action. Gay marriage is not viewed as contributing to this preferred condition.

By the slippery slope fallacy, all change is bad, everything must be "conserved" exactly as it is, which is why it's not surprisingly a mainstay of "conservatism." But if it were true, there would be no ongoing need for a legislature... I guess that's why they call it a fallacy. The slippery slope can sometimes be accurate for specific instances, but you cannot generalize it to non-specific, nebulous ideas like "moral relativism."

Homosexuality serves no state interest. The burden is on the one advocating gay marriage to produce evidence of why the government should regard these marriages as contributing to the preferred condition. Thus far, they have not. The only rights gays do not have is the "marital" right which is costly to the state. Why would the state assume this financial risk when there is no reward? Many would argue that the problem with marriage today is the separation of it from its initial, intended purpose of procreation. This has led to the abandonment of children into single-parent families and led to a host of other increasing social pathologies and a dropping birthrate in general. Why add to the mess? To what benefit? To the benefit of those who can already attain all the related "rights" by other means? If a state must accept the cost by virtue of "love" alone, there is no end to what relationship it must acknowledge. The slippery slope in this sense is not a fallacy, but a logical, inevitable eventuality.

I've consistently said that gay marriage is a victimless "crime" but pedophilia is not. The same way BDSM is victimless but rape is not.

Bestiality, brother/sister marriage, first cousins... these are all consenting, victimless conditions that are most often not granted the affirmative action. Why? Because they have not proven beneficial to the state and there's simply no reason the state must assume the cost of the relationship.

Red herring. Society doesn't discriminate either race or mental illness when granting marriage. The only exception singled out for discrimination here is homosexuality.

Wrong as noted above.

What you did was engage in blatant hypocrisy. You maintain even now that identifying someone as a bigot is somehow a bully tactic to silence others (which I don't concede it is), yet that didn't stop you from calling me one.

I've merely implied that words have meaning. By your logic, you're guilty of the same hypocrisy. Here you're trying to define me as a hypocrite for calling you a bigot when you've maintained that if bigotry can be established, it is a legitimate indictment. I've established that by definition, you have the larger problem while the only evidence you've provided is that they have no just cause for their opposition. You've defined what just-cause is, you've defined bigotry, and you used the term first. I used your statements in tandem with the actual definition.

You then proceeded to declare that you "never called anyone names," which of course you did do.

You claimed it wasn't ad hom if it were established fact. Are you retracting that now?

Now you're hung up on it being an ad hom, which it isn't, because I'm not attacking bigots, I'm only scorning the act of bigotry. The fact that those who engage in bigotry happen to be bigots is an irrelevant tautology. I would not dismiss a bigot's non-bigoted arguments if they were reasonable.

So... the bigots aren't attacking homosexuals, they're just attacking the act of marrying. Again, you're defining what is and is not reasonable with a mistaken notion of what the Federal privilege is intended to incentivize.

Apparently I've been trying to reinvent the wheel in this, as what you're doing is an established fallacy called Loki's wager, "the insistence that a concept cannot be defined and therefore cannot be discussed." Even without a definition of "victimization," you can't deny that it exists nor even that it exists outside of Judeo-Christian theology. A sense of victimization has even been scientifically demonstrated in chimps and dogs.

I always love it when someone fashions themselves a resident expert on logical fallacy by retro-fitting various forms of it to one's argument with blatant disregard for the content of the argument. I never said any of this can't be discussed, I merely challenged the merit of the argument. Can one not challenge the merit of a feeble argument without committing a logical fallacy now?

FUD is not reprehensible, it's just not the least bit convincing. This is the same misunderstanding you have with the label "bigot." I don't hate bigots, I'm not even intolerant of bigots, I just don't find them convincing when they make arguments based from their bigotry.

I have the same problem, but I'd argue I have the actual definition of the word at my disposal in so doing.

Slavery is perfectly sane. It's cruel, it's greedy, it's arguably evil, but it's not insane.

I did not describe slavery in and of itself. I described very specific aspects of it that I would argue were severely dissociative.

The motivation is the same for both: prejudice.

There's nothing to "prejudge". It is not making an assumption about a condition, the condition is the prerequisite of the request to the state.

It's also the same reason for the poorer quality of the African American "separate" facilities. I see no reason to think that the quality of gays' "separate" benefits won't decline just as the African Americans' did, do you? If so, what reason?

There's nothing to suggest that a state who has granted "partnerships" or any other form of acknowledgement of civil union has strained that grant.

Yes, it is a big leap, and that leap is bridged by the fact that those who oppose it are doing so out of prejudice, as evidenced by the face that they have no reason for doing so.

No they're not. They're doing so out of opposition to gay marriage and believe that homosexuals have not established why the State should be concerned with incentivizing their mental illness.

• There are a wealth of tax breaks for small business owners, is this bigoted against employees of larger firms?
• There are tax breaks and incentives for elderly people, is this bigoted against young people? If half the elderly people are good stewards of the incentive, but the other half are not, do we simply cut the incentive altogether in the interest of "fairness"?
• Young people have breaks of another kind, but is this really separate, but equal?
• Are the child income credit tax breaks a sign of bigotry against non-parents?
• Are you really bigoted by supporting any of the above incentives without supporting all tax break proposals with the exact same provisions and documentation for everyone, across the board?

The answer to all the above is "of course not". This only becomes an issue when one can assume the bully pulpit of an ad hom using the most peculiar logic in a discussion on this singular topic; gay marriage. I can only guess it's because they insist the views are founded in distaste for homosexuality, not opposition to gay marriage.

With no evidence to back the notion whatsoever.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Would these people have pretty much the same legal arrangement as people who are "married"? Pretty much, but I still don't think it would provide the same "affirmative action" as we give those who DO marry and end up with offspring. It lacks the societal importance we bestow upon people getting together, building new families. Once married people start reproducing, an entirely different set of affirmative actions, rules and regulations kick in and it has little to nothing to do with a signed contract and that adds another layer to the "marriage" affirmative action.

Allow me to rephrase the question.

How would you structure civil unions so as to avoid them diluting the affirmative action of marriage?

I get the implication from your last response you feel different nomenclature will suffice.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As painful as it might be to understand, most people are like bees being swung at. On the one hand, you can't blame homosexuals for swinging at the hive and on the other, the hive is going to act defensively.

The only reason to get defensive is if you are unwilling to change your mind based on reason and/or evidence. In other words, if you are prejudiced. I'm not surprised that large groups are collectively prejudiced, that's usually the case.

I would not only consider that bigoted, but I'd have to also consider the mere notion of treating narcolepsy or schizophrenia bigoted. I would insist they were born that way and I would urge the nearby school to bring their class over to the clinic or group home for a wedding. I would amass huge sums of money for lobbying "narcolepsy rights" including cots and pillows at my desk. I'd attend marches carrying posterboards depicting sleepers on roller coasters or selling "I'm seeing weird sh!t for free!" t-shirts. That's not apples to apples man that's apples to rodeo clowns.

You're making an excellent case for homosexuality being entirely unlike any recognized mental illness. Apples to rodeo clowns indeed.

In regards to [schizophrenics] marrying one another, they are not asking society to define marriage differently

Only because society didn't "define" them out of marriage in the first place.

we can run the gamete of other sexual preferences I suppose

pun intended? or freudian slip?

If they thought schizophrenia was an STD, I'd go beyond telling them they are bigoted, I'd have to conclude they are patently stupid.

Bingo. Schizophrenia is not an STD but even if it was this would have no bearing on the right to marriage (although if you're determined to find fault you might argue that STDs can be spread through marriage or some other bunk). Thus, a perfect example of specious reasoning. Likewise, homosexuality is not a mental illness but even if it was this would have no bearing on the right to marriage (although if you're determined to find fault you might argue that the mental illness could be encouraged through marriage or some other bunk). You put it perfectly succinctly: I'd have to conclude that those arguing the mental illness justification are patently stupid.

Should zoophiles be allowed to marry chimpanzees? Wouldn't it be bigoted to deny them their right to love? There are no victims.

Welcome back to page 3, ebuddy. Animals can't give informed consent either, remember?

Of course not. There are a great many homosexuals who don't want to be gay and are seeking treatment. Would you condemn them for it?

Red herring. Gays who don't want to be gay won't be trying to get gay-married whether it is legal or not.

Would you condemn them or any other gays for opposing gay marriage?

Not if they have a sound reason for it. What is their reason? For that matter, who are they? I have never met one.

Over 20 states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases like in Oklahoma. Are they all bigoted?

Yes. Have I not been clear about this?

They seem to be acting in the state interest. Marriage seems to be an affirmative action. Gay marriage is not viewed as contributing to this preferred condition.

It seems that way, does it?
specious |ˈspē sh əs| adjective
superficially plausible, but actually wrong : a specious argument.
• misleading in appearance, esp. misleadingly attractive : the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty.

Logically no different from claiming schizophrenics shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is an STD. Both are specious arguments.

Homosexuality serves no state interest.

Yes it does serve a state interest in as much as homosexuals are part of the state. Even to those members of the state who want nothing to do with homosexuality, marriages are big business. Increasing the number of marriages, especially between people who don't need to save for a college fund, and who have an over-developed and gaudy sense of fashion, will most certainly help stimulate the economy. Incidentally, I'm sure the attorneys who handled Julie and Hillary's divorce didn't mind the extra business either.

The only rights gays do not have is the "marital" right which is costly to the state.

That's a new one. In what way is it costly to the state?

I've merely implied that words have meaning. By your logic, you're guilty of the same hypocrisy. Here you're trying to define me as a hypocrite for calling you a bigot when you've maintained that if bigotry can be established, it is a legitimate indictment.

That was sarcasm. I mistakenly thought that you would recognize your own words repeated immediately back to you. I'll say it plainly. Bigotry is not an "indictment," I'm not "indicting" bigots for being what they are, it's a free country and they're free to think whatever they please. I'm only explaining why their arguments hold no weight to non-bigots such as you and me. Although if they want to stop being bigots, I fully support it.

You claimed it wasn't ad hom if it were established fact. Are you retracting that now?

I was using it sarcastically, hoping you would realize how foolish it sounded coming from the other side. What's your excuse?

So... the bigots aren't attacking homosexuals, they're just attacking the act of marrying.

Nice try, but of course you noticed I said "scorn" not "attack." I thought words had meaning to you

I always love it when someone fashions themselves a resident expert on logical fallacy

I dislike it too, but I'm tired of reinventing the wheel to expose your tired cliches.

I never said any of this can't be discussed, I merely challenged the merit of the argument.

You challenged my definition of "victim," claiming I can't argue any "victimization" without one. Just like Loki's wager, where Loki kept his head as long as no one could agree on where his neck began even though either side's definition would have sufficed, you can pre-empt my point as long as no one can agree what "victim" means even though any definition will suffice. So fine, I'll use any definition of "victim" you give, as inclusive or exclusive as you like. Any definition will show that pedophilia involves some victims but gay marriage involves no victims. That's the difference.

If you can convince me there are no victims at all from pedophilia, I will agree that opposition to it is just bigotry.

I have the same problem, but I'd argue I have the actual definition of the word at my disposal in so doing.

did you forget it? Here's the one you gave: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I'm not intolerant of bigots Try again?

I'll point you in the right direction. Is it ever unbigoted, according to ebuddy, to disagree with bigots? What about the KKK, does disagreeing with them make one a bigot? Does downright opposing or attacking them make one a bigot?

I did not describe slavery in and of itself. I described very specific aspects of it that I would argue were severely dissociative.

You would argue a majority of the population was technically insane? For hundreds of years? That's a very fringe viewpoint. It's going to take a lot of work for you to convince many people of it.

There's nothing to "prejudge". It is not making an assumption about a condition, the condition is the prerequisite of the request to the state.

it's certainly making the assumption that the condition is undesirable. You've said that about 100 times already.

No they're not. They're doing so out of opposition to gay marriage and believe that homosexuals have not established why the State should be concerned with incentivizing their mental illness.

Yeah, still specious. You repeat it enough times and pretty soon you will think schizophrenia is an STD.

• There are a wealth of tax breaks for small business owners, is this bigoted against employees of larger firms?
• There are tax breaks and incentives for elderly people, is this bigoted against young people? If half the elderly people are good stewards of the incentive, but the other half are not, do we simply cut the incentive altogether in the interest of "fairness"?
• Young people have breaks of another kind, but is this really separate, but equal?
• Are the child income credit tax breaks a sign of bigotry against non-parents?
• Are you really bigoted by supporting any of the above incentives without supporting all tax break proposals with the exact same provisions and documentation for everyone, across the board?

The answer to all the above is "of course not". This only becomes an issue when one can assume the bully pulpit of an ad hom using the most peculiar logic in a discussion on this singular topic; gay marriage.

I can only assume the ad hom you mean is "bigot," but that can't be because gay marriage isn't the "only" "most peculiar" or "singular" topic in which this moniker is used. Your rant makes no sense

I can only guess it's because they insist the views are founded in distaste for homosexuality, not opposition to gay marriage.

You're claiming that the view (opposition to gay marriage) is founded in "opposition to gay marriage"??? It's "founded" in itself? Circular reasoning.

I've stated that if your steadfast view has no basis in reason then that constitutes prejudice, and I stand by that*. If all you can come up with as a reason for your view is a word-for-word reiteration of your view, I'd say it's pretty clear what you're doing. No need for you to admit it, everyone can tell.

*It looks like the built-in dictionary confirms I'm right: "prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience"

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Unless I'm missing something, those affirmative actions, rules and regulations for parents "kick in" regardless of whether the parents are married or not.

True, but as a whole, the marriage/parenting affirmative actions serve to give special status to men and women who marry and have children. It's this special societal status that homosexual activists seek. That's why despite being the same in most every way, "civil unions" aren't good enough for them. They are demanding the exact same status, wording, etc. - not just the same legal abilities. They wish to legislate cultural acceptance by society.

Your whole post boils down to "civil unions can be used by people who aren't in love," but the same is true of hetero marriages. Red herring times two.

Not at all. You have two sets of legal definitions for much the same thing. For marriage, not everyone who takes part actually intends to qualify for it in the way it was intended, much the same way wealthy minorities who really don't need extra help in succeeding in life can take advantage of racial affirmative action programs.

Just because poor appalachian white people could also benefit from racial affirmative action programs because they DO need extra help succeeding in life, doesn't mean we open up the racial affirmative action programs for them or further means test racial affirmative action. We may very well start a new set of affirmative actions for their benefit which allows them to benefit in many of the same ways as racial affirmative action, but for different reasons and with a different set of qualifying criteria. Once size does not fit all.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Allow me to rephrase the question.

How would you structure civil unions so as to avoid them diluting the affirmative action of marriage?

I get the implication from your last response you feel different nomenclature will suffice.

I suggest you ask a homosexual activist if they will accept "civil unions" as having the same status as "marriage" and be satisfied with that. I think you'll find your answer in their response.

If you think hard enough, I bet you can think of instances in the past were people where given essentially the same rights but where given them in a way that reduced their status. This essentially makes them not equal, but given that we are dealing with something that doesn't have equal societal/governmental interest anyways, there's no legal reason why it would need be.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The only reason to get defensive is if you are unwilling to change your mind based on reason and/or evidence. In other words, if you are prejudiced. I'm not surprised that large groups are collectively prejudiced, that's usually the case.

What you're saying in essence is that interracial marriage for example is now accepted by an otherwise bigoted society because reason and/or evidence prevailed. So... we're not really talking about bigotry then, but a fundamental lack of evidence. The degree of evidence that might encourage better reasoning? What if reason and/or evidence leads one to conclude homosexuality is a mental disorder? Why is it necessary for the state to incentivize a mental illness in this way?

You're making an excellent case for homosexuality being entirely unlike any recognized mental illness. Apples to rodeo clowns indeed.

Just as narcolepsy and schizophrenia are unlike one another, sure.

Only because society didn't "define" them out of marriage in the first place.

Exactly, just as society has defined young people out of social security.

pun intended? or freudian slip?

I closed the statement with; "but that's ludicrous of another kind". i.e. You're not my huckleberry.

Bingo. Schizophrenia is not an STD but even if it was this would have no bearing on the right to marriage (although if you're determined to find fault you might argue that STDs can be spread through marriage or some other bunk).

As a proponent of the status quo, I would only have to establish why the privilege was not intended to produce a large tent of validation for various requests to marry, but to bolster a form of union found most favored.

Thus, a perfect example of specious reasoning. Likewise, homosexuality is not a mental illness but even if it was this would have no bearing on the right to marriage (although if you're determined to find fault you might argue that the mental illness could be encouraged through marriage or some other bunk). You put it perfectly succinctly: I'd have to conclude that those arguing the mental illness justification are patently stupid.

Some might conclude that the desire to marry in and of itself shows dependency or even insanity so in this respect mental health may not have a bearing on the right to marry. Still, there's a particular relationship the state is attempting to bolster and homosexuals simply do not fit this criteria.

Welcome back to page 3, ebuddy. Animals can't give informed consent either, remember?

So... we can kill and eat them without their consent, but we can't love them? What kind of topsy-turvy, screwed up world are we living in?

Red herring. Gays who don't want to be gay won't be trying to get gay-married whether it is legal or not.

This was in response to your example of vets convincing the powers-that-be that PTSD is real and requires treatment; you asked if I would condemn them. I said "no" and asked if you would condemn gays for seeking treatment. If it's a red herring I guess I'd ask that you not invoke them in your argument?

Not if they have a sound reason for it. What is their reason? For that matter, who are they? I have never met one.

meet Al Rantel

Logically no different from claiming schizophrenics shouldn't be allowed to marry because it is an STD. Both are specious arguments.

A schizophrenic can enter a relationship and birth offspring into a home with a mother and father. Veterans can apply for specific property tax relief under a program designed for them, it is logically no different for you to advocate that all should be included in this program, having served the military or not. You're still not getting it.

es it does serve a state interest in as much as homosexuals are part of the state. Even to those members of the state who want nothing to do with homosexuality, marriages are big business. Increasing the number of marriages, especially between people who don't need to save for a college fund, and who have an over-developed and gaudy sense of fashion, will most certainly help stimulate the economy.

Do single gays spend less on fashion than gays in relationships? I thought specious reasoning was beneath you.

That's a new one. In what way is it costly to the state?

There are some 1,138 federal provisions that currently accommodate married people on account of their marital status in the distribution of rights, taxes and other benefits, and legal privileges.

I dislike it too, but I'm tired of reinventing the wheel to expose your tired cliches.

If they're tired, put them to bed already. The only reason tired cliches have shelf-life at all is because they remain unaddressed.

You challenged my definition of "victim," claiming I can't argue any "victimization" without one. Just like Loki's wager, where Loki kept his head as long as no one could agree on where his neck began even though either side's definition would have sufficed, you can pre-empt my point as long as no one can agree what "victim" means even though any definition will suffice. So fine, I'll use any definition of "victim" you give, as inclusive or exclusive as you like. Any definition will show that pedophilia involves some victims but gay marriage involves no victims. That's the difference.

All I said was that the notion is a societal construct. I'm not saying you can't argue it, but I gave examples of how loosely it can be used and cited examples of victimization through gay marriage. You're free to use "victimization" as long as you acknowledge that it is subject to the same arbiters of "opposition to gay marriage".

If you can convince me there are no victims at all from pedophilia, I will agree that opposition to it is just bigotry.

I can't convince you of this fact any more than I can convince you that the intent of incentivizing a specific condition is victimized by allowing gay marriage. The state incentivizes a preferred condition and you've not really established why gays have any more right to this than all have the right to veterans benefits. Why is gay marriage equal to straight marriage that it should receive the benefits of the state?

did you forget it? Here's the one you gave: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I'm not intolerant of bigots Try again?

No. You're intolerant of those opposed to gay marriage by calling them bigots. This is an attempt to attack their character and render their views without credibility. You cite their lack of reasoning as the defining trait because you simply fail to accept the validity of their views. i.e. you're intolerant of them. You're likening the act of "opposing gay marriage" to "opposing gays".

I'll point you in the right direction. Is it ever unbigoted, according to ebuddy, to disagree with bigots? What about the KKK, does disagreeing with them make one a bigot? Does downright opposing or attacking them make one a bigot?

No. Calling someone "bigoted" by virtue of the fact that they disagree with you on a singular issue is intolerant of dissenting opinion. You're taking a stance and giving it an identity from which you can espouse intolerance. You can support gay marriage and still be a bigot Uncle.

You would argue a majority of the population was technically insane? For hundreds of years? That's a very fringe viewpoint. It's going to take a lot of work for you to convince many people of it.

I'll bet it'd be easier to argue this than the notion that those who support the death penalty are "blood thirsty".

it's certainly making the assumption that the condition is undesirable. You've said that about 100 times already.

I've never said the condition was undesirable. It may not be as desirable as straight marriage and as such may not enjoy the same incentives granted the more desirable.

Yeah, still specious. You repeat it enough times and pretty soon you will think schizophrenia is an STD.

Red herring. argumentum ad stupidum.

I can only assume the ad hom you mean is "bigot," but that can't be because gay marriage isn't the "only" "most peculiar" or "singular" topic in which this moniker is used. Your rant makes no sense

You missed it. I gave you a whole bunch of examples of benefits for very specific demographics. Examples of the state incentivizing a specific class or group of people to encourage a specific societal condition. The only problem with the examples I gave is that they basically knocked down every single argument you've presented in 6 pages of debate. They work in all, but discussions on gay marriage.

Common sense will generally elude those without it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Revisionist wishful thinking

What percentage of those unions did not involve reproducing heirs?

1, you argue out one side of your mouth that the government is scrambling to find homes for all the unwanted children by pushing their parents to stay together, while you argue from the other side that the demand for spare children is so high that homos are "buying" them up. Cognitive dissonance much?

Not scambling to find homes for them. Most who are born out of wedlock or are products of divorce will be raised by a single parent. Studies have shown that these children end up having a lot more problems then those raised by a loving biological mother and father.

Homosexuals and others not wanting to bother with affording their children mothers or fathers have babies made for them in many cases via genetic donation, surrogates or buy children psuedo-legally from unmarried mothers who can't afford or don't want to raise their offspring. I have no problem with homosexuals adopting or becoming foster parents to children who for whatever reason can not be placed in a home featuring a responsible, loving mother and father. A responsible mother and mother or father and father is better than no parents at all, being raised in an orphanage and forcing the state to care for them. I just don't think that we should be doing anything that would suggest that government/society believes that is an arrangement as desirable as a mother/father/child union.

2, if the government has no real interest besides the children, then what's the harm? Gays won't be cranking out offspring either way, so why should society care if they want to join in the joy/misery of marriage as they see it?

You're removing the special status the affirmative action brings to those who the compelling "societal interest" to the government (not love or emotion). If you change the definition so there's no longer the implication that these unions will eventually end up with the desired mother/father/child family unit that is the norm with these types of relationships, you give this "special status" to anyone and it's no longer special. It's not just the exceptions to the rule who are sneaking into this special status, it's anyone who just wants the legal rights and are willing to sign the papers. There is no longer the implication or intention that "marriage" will end up (normally) resulting in a mother/father/child unit that stays together, which is what is desired by society and is best for the state. The harm is that you essentially remove the special status from people who are likely to reproduce and stay a family unit and give that status to anyone - even when there is no special government or societal interest to do so. You are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

That horse has left the barn. That can't be the true reason you oppose gay marriage when you don't make even the slightest effort to stop heteros from doing the same thing.

I've already explained it using precedent in other matters. I treat it the same as racial affirmative action. It makes little sense to means test something to the point where you are taking extraordinary effort to exclude people who may eventually meet the criteria of having the increased government interest in question, even if they don't at the time they are getting married. It takes no effort to exclude homosexuals who could never meet the criteria. It's no different than allowing all black folks to take part in racial affirmative action, even if they might have the means to succeed on their own, but removing all white people. This reasoning has withstood legal scrutiny in the past.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I suggest you ask a homosexual activist if they will accept "civil unions" as having the same status as "marriage" and be satisfied with that. I think you'll find your answer in their response.

I'm not trying to be snarky here... Is that a yes to my question?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True, but as a whole, the marriage/parenting affirmative actions serve to give special status to men and women who marry and have children.

If 2/3 of people do it, it's not "special" it's "normal."

It's this special societal status that homosexual activists seek. That's why despite being the same in most every way, "civil unions" aren't good enough for them. They are demanding the exact same status, wording, etc. - not just the same legal abilities. They wish to legislate cultural acceptance by society.

Oh, you're putting words in their mouth now. I suppose when they tell you what your reasons are they're wrong, but when you tell them what their reasons are you're right? Why am I not surprised.

Not at all. You have two sets of legal definitions for much the same thing. For marriage, not everyone who takes part actually intends to qualify for it in the way it was intended, much the same way wealthy minorities who really don't need extra help in succeeding in life can take advantage of racial affirmative action programs.

Racial affirmative action is a reparation for past injustice. What past injustice have married people or parents suffered?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not trying to be snarky here... Is that a yes to my question?

I really don't think it would ONLY be different nomenclature. As I explained, there are other factors which give one added status that the other did not even if they both have essentially the same rights to create legal contracts with people in much the same way. Think about my second paragraph and why it is you might think that a gay rights activist would think that "different nomenclature" is a simplistic way of looking at it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What percentage of those unions did not involve reproducing heirs?

I don't know, but I imagine it's about the same percentage as gays in the population
But that doesn't tell you much, for example, what percentage of those unions did not involve love?

Not scambling to find homes for them. Most who are born out of wedlock or are products of divorce will be raised by a single parent. Studies have shown that these children end up having a lot more problems then those raised by a loving biological mother and father.

The real question is, are these children better off with only one mother or with only two mothers? You lament the single-parent family, even while you reject attempts by (gay) couples to adopt children to raise in two-parent families. Illogical. Furthermore, how would allowing gay marriage have any effect on single-parent families? Do you really think that more parents will ditch their families if they see gays marrying?

I just don't think that we should be doing anything that would suggest that government/society believes that is an arrangement as desirable as a mother/father/child union.

What would the result be, in your mind? You think that otherwise straight parents would decide to become gay parents if the option of gay marriage was opened to them?

You're removing the special status the affirmative action brings to those who the compelling "societal interest" to the government (not love or emotion).

Wait, not love and emotion? You literally just said "loving" parents are important.

It's not just the exceptions to the rule who are sneaking into this special status, it's anyone who just wants the legal rights and are willing to sign the papers.

That horse has left the barn. Childless hetero marriages outnumber gays, married or not.

The harm is that you essentially remove the special status from people who are likely to reproduce and stay a family unit and give that status to anyone - even when there is no special government or societal interest to do so. You are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

You really think people wouldn't stay together if they were "civil united" instead of "married?"

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If 2/3 of people do it, it's not "special" it's "normal."

It's normal for those people to get special rights. We are now debating if 2-3% more should normally get those special rights.

Racial affirmative action is a reparation for past injustice. What past injustice have married people or parents suffered?

I dispute your assertion and your logic. While that might be ONE of the reasons it's given, that doesn't mean that there are not other reasons, or that there are no other reasons why we would give affirmative actions to other groups.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I don't know, but I imagine it's about the same percentage as gays in the population

I'd probably agree. Which means that your assertion that marriage had little to do with reproduction in the far past holds little water.

But that doesn't tell you much, for example, what percentage of those unions did not involve love?

As I stated, the government has little real interest or concern with individual's emotions, so that information would be irrelevant.

The real question is, are these children better off with only one mother or with only two mothers? You lament the single-parent family, even while you reject attempts by (gay) couples to adopt children to raise in two-parent families.

I don't reject them. I made that clear. I just don't think we should be providing affirmative actions which might encourage people not to provide man/woman/child parenting arrangements. Both single motherhood, and dual motherhood goes against this goal. Both are clear rejections of the desired standard.

Though, if I'd have to choose and all other things being equal, I'd suppose having 2 mothers would be preferable to only one due to the amount of time the child would have with an adult roll model being increased with 2 mothers. Though, there is probably a greater chance that the single mother will be able to provide that mother/father/child family unit which is the goal, in the future.

Illogical. Furthermore, how would allowing gay marriage have any effect on single-parent families? Do you really think that more parents will ditch their families if they see gays marrying?

If you further make marriage only a legal construct used only to acknowledge emotion, then you are removing a part of the traditional definition of marriage that revolved around the man/woman/child family marriage unit. Why work hard at a marriage if you just don't feel exactly like you did when you got married? Since maintaining the family unit has nothing to do with it, why bother? It's just about how *I* feel after all. Granted, a lot of people already take this selfish tact, but I don't think that's reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Wait, not love and emotion? You literally just said "loving" parents are important.

In raising children. Absent that, a parent or guardian isn't going to look out for the best welfare of the child. They have no real interest in the emotions of individuals. They do however when offspring are created - which is why we acknowledge marriage rights in the first place.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

True, but as a whole, the marriage/parenting affirmative actions serve to give special status to men and women who marry and have children.

I dispute your assertion and your logic. While that might be ONE of the reasons it's given, that doesn't mean that there are not other reasons, or that there are no other reasons why we would give affirmative actions to other groups.

I just don't think we should be providing affirmative actions which might encourage people not to provide man/woman/child parenting arrangements

What? You think that if people aren't encouraged to be straight parents they'll wander off and be gay? Have you ever even heard of that happening?

If you further make marriage only a legal construct used only to acknowledge emotion

Who said anything about only emotion? Why can't it be both?

Granted, a lot of people already take this selfish tact, but I don't think that's reason to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

The "baby" was an illusion to begin with. Marriage isn't why people stay together (is it? I really want to know if you think this is true). That's why divorce is so common, and that's why the human race survived just fine before marriage existed.

In raising children. Absent that, a parent or guardian isn't going to look out for the best welfare of the child. They have no real interest in the emotions of individuals. They do however when offspring are created - which is why we acknowledge marriage rights in the first place.

Love is not a finite resource. The more society promotes and encourages love, the more love there will be to go around when it's time for children to get some. If some of that love falls on childless couples, that doesn't hurt, it doesn't take away from child-rearing couples. It probably even helps; people who are happy at home are more productive and less likely to cause trouble for everyone else.

[OldManMac]

The lengths some will go to, in order to "justify" their ill-conceived "logic" is not surprising; after all mankind has a long history of coming up with all manner of "reason" in order to subjugate another party or group to his will. Fortunately, somewhere down the road people begin to realize how silly their forebears were, and we move from the cave to a modern living room. Unfortunately, some would seem to prefer living in a cave, harkening back to those mythical "good old days," fighting to the end for naught, against something that never would have affected them in the first instance, failing to see, through their clouded vision and their misdirected anxieties and anger, what a waste of time and energy they expended, while the rest of us move on, fully cognizant of the folly of their ways, wondering what all the fuss is about. This thread, and the many that have preceded it here and elsewhere, and the many that will follow it, are excellent examples of the folly of some, whose energy could have been much better put to use working toward a cause that would actually help themselves and their fellow man. What a tragedy.

Gay marriage is going to be legal someday, everywhere, in the U. S., and all the pontificating about gays seeking "special" rights, and about them diminishing the importance of heterosexual marriage, and all the other nonsense that those opposed to it dig out of the garbage, will be shown for what it is; grasping at straws by those who dare not look in the mirror.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I dispute your assertion and your logic. While that might be ONE of the reasons it's given, that doesn't mean that there are not other reasons, or that there are no other reasons why we would give affirmative actions to other groups.

I agree, but as long as it's "one of the reasons" it's given, and it's the one with the greatest demonstrable societal/government interest, that "one reason" being absent from other arrangements is enough to use it as deciding factor whether or not government gets involved or not.

What? You think that if people aren't encouraged to be straight parents they'll wander off and be gay? Have you ever even heard of that happening

No. They'll wander off and decide not to be a part of the man/woman/child family unit they started.

Who said anything about only emotion? Why can't it be both?

It can't be for gay people. Their unions will never result in the production of offspring. Not even if they try REALLY hard. The stuff not dealing with emotion is where the state has a compelling interest. Absent that, there really is no reason for the state to get involved with people's emotions. Those are things that can't be legislated or regulated.

The "baby" was an illusion to begin with. Marriage isn't why people stay together (is it? I really want to know if you think this is true). That's why divorce is so common, and that's why the human race survived just fine before marriage existed.

The human race survives because we have a natural desire to reproduce. It's this drive which has caused humans over time to develop societal constructs such as marriage to better serve that desire. If you want to go back in time when we were living in caves and had no idea what a transistor was, or engaged in what we now refer to as "marriage," be my guest. You can also send your women out your village when she menstruates as well. I suggest that what we've developed has worked pretty well for the thousands of years we've had things set up this way. That's why kept doing things this way with little change.

Love is not a finite resource. The more society promotes and encourages love, the more love there will be to go around when it's time for children to get some.

Love is an emotion, and one that is often times fleeting. That's not anything that the state can control or encourage. Love isn't based on logic, reasoning or anything else quantifiable. That's not exactly in the same ballpark as simply providing government affirmative action to keep biological families in tact.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The lengths some will go to, in order to "justify" their ill-conceived "logic" is not surprising; after all mankind has a long history of coming up with all manner of "reason" in order to subjugate another party or group to his will. Fortunately, somewhere down the road people begin to realize how silly their forebears were, and we move from the cave to a modern living room.

Unfortunately, you can't seem to form a compelling argument as to why the position I and others take is not logical. You can likely explain why it doesn't make you feel good, and why you think that despite the logic, you want things to be different, but that doesn't make those who disagree with you silly.

Unfortunately, some would seem to prefer living in a cave, harkening back to those mythical "good old days," fighting to the end for naught, against something that never would have affected them in the first instance, failing to see, through their clouded vision and their misdirected anxieties and anger, what a waste of time and energy they expended, while the rest of us move on, fully cognizant of the folly of their ways, wondering what all the fuss is about. This thread, and the many that have preceded it here and elsewhere, and the many that will follow it, are excellent examples of the folly of some, whose energy could have been much better put to use working toward a cause that would actually help themselves and their fellow man. What a tragedy.

The above paragraph is a perfect example of exactly what you are talking about. How is that for irony!

Gay marriage is going to be legal someday, everywhere, in the U. S., and all the pontificating about gays seeking "special" rights, and about them diminishing the importance of heterosexual marriage, and all the other nonsense that those opposed to it dig out of the garbage, will be shown for what it is; grasping at straws by those who dare not look in the mirror.

Lots of things become legal that never should, based on a lack of logic and most of the time, lies. Our current abortion laws are a good example. Created from whole cloth, based on lies, and supported by a minority. Having laws regress in ways which makes society less civilized and serves to undue thousands of years of progress in building stable communities isn't progress any way you look at it. It's amazing that people would press for this to occur, simply to help protect their self esteem and/or a desire to rebel against the status quo and traditional values - especially when it's shown that these values simply work best in building strong communities. Places where traditional values and standards are shunned typically don't thrive, they eventually become cesspools. Some of us simply don't want that. Sorry.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Unfortunately, you can't seem to form a compelling argument as to why the position I and others take is not logical. You can likely explain why it doesn't make you feel good, and why you think that despite the logic, you want things to be different, but that doesn't make those who disagree with you silly.

It does, when most of us eventually realize that they're wasting their time. The compelling argument I, and others who realize there are more important things to worry about, have is that we're smart enough to realize that it doesn't affect anyone else's life if Bill and Bob marry and move in next door. That's an argument no one has ever been able to refute, except by those who have to make up specious reasons to invade others' privacy, out of irrational fear and insecurity in their own beliefs.

The above paragraph is a perfect example of exactly what you are talking about. How is that for irony!

Whoosh!

Lots of things become legal that never should, based on a lack of logic and most of the time, lies. Our current abortion laws are a good example. Created from whole cloth, based on lies, and supported by a minority. Having laws regress in ways which makes society less civilized and serves to undue thousands of years of progress in building stable communities isn't progress any way you look at it. It's amazing that people would press for this to occur, simply to help protect their self esteem and/or a desire to rebel against the status quo and traditional values - especially when it's shown that these values simply work best in building strong communities. Places where traditional values and standards are shunned typically don't thrive, they eventually become cesspools. Some of us simply don't want that. Sorry.

Your opinion is duly noted. Abortion laws are based on the concept of precluding the taking of what some people consider a human life, based on religious belief. The major flaw with that, of course, is that there are those who don't consider it a human life until much later in the pregnancy, and there are those who believe that they have the right to do what they want to their body. Your argument seems to be that, if a woman aborts a child, she becomes part of a sociopathic society which condones wanton murder and mayhem. That is of course false, but it never stops you from advancing your argument, as if your incessant repetition of the same points makes them true. The "traditional values" argument is also a fallacious one; values in societies and cultures are constantly changing. yet we're not living in caves anymore. We live longer, healthier and better than we did just a few generations ago, yet there are those (and I'm including you in this group) who no doubt think that Leave It To Beaver was a reality show, and that Ward, June, Wally and the Beaver was representative of family life in the 50s and 60s, when it was far from being so. Your attempt to connect abortion with gay marriage is also another excellent example of the foolishness that people will dredge up when they need to grasp at anything to make their "point."

Susie and Mary having a marriage license and living next door to you doesn't make society a cesspool, unless you're willing to participate in making it so. Susie and Mary want the same things you do; a job and the ability to spend their lives together in a loving and committed relationship. You're the one advancing all the silly arguments about the fallacious repercussions that will not occur, and just because you say they will doesn't present a cohesive argument that your irrational fears will come to pass.

Gay marriage is legal in five states, one of which it has been legal in for five years. The world is not ending, and will not, just because you have self esteem problems, and need to worry about that which doesn't affect you. In your never ending attempt to worry about that which you shouldn't, you're making up stuff (I can't use a better word, because there isn't one more appropriate) out of thin air, based on the lies of desperate worry warts before and around you, and that is neither reality nor justification. The world changes, things happen, and some people go to their graves thinking that they were right, and they do so needlessly.

Sorry.

[Kerrigan]

As a gay person, I think that the gay marriage movement is being poorly executed.

I strongly believe that the vast majority of Americans do not dislike gay people.

But the concept of marriage has very strong religious, social, and cultural connotations. I can understand why most people do not want to tamper with the institution of marriage, which has strong symbolic importance for most people.

The gay marriage proponents would have been wiser to stick with the term "civil unions." This would have caused less controversy and could have been enacted without fuss.

Instead, activists have turned this into just another battle in the Culture Wars. Naive gays have tried to paint this issue as a major civil rights movement (it isn't), and equally naive straights are acting like this will undermine the fabric of society (it won't).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It does, when most of us eventually realize that they're wasting their time. The compelling argument I, and others who realize there are more important things to worry about, have is that we're smart enough to realize that it doesn't affect anyone else's life if Bill and Bob marry and move in next door. That's an argument no one has ever been able to refute, except by those who have to make up specious reasons to invade others' privacy, out of irrational fear and insecurity in their own beliefs.

You're not paying attention to the arguments presented OldMan. GI Bills and/or benefits paid to veterans for example are not policies of ignorance, fear, and bigotry against non-veterans. It is to incentivize a behavior. The idea that "it doesn't affect me" is solid foundation for policy initiative is laughable and completely baseless. How about answering why a homosexual relationship should be incentivized by the State?

Spare me the tripe about "invasion of privacy". They are requesting the State acknowledge their union. i.e. they're not interested in keeping their relationship private.

Your opinion is duly noted. Abortion laws are based on the concept of precluding the taking of what some people consider a human life, based on religious belief.

It must always be based on religious belief right? Relativists VS moralists. Where does your tolerance end and what religious view facilitates those limits? By what moral authority do you deem pedophilia wrong for example?

The major flaw with that, of course, is that there are those who don't consider it a human life until much later in the pregnancy, and there are those who believe that they have the right to do what they want to their body. Your argument seems to be that, if a woman aborts a child, she becomes part of a sociopathic society which condones wanton murder and mayhem. That is of course false, but it never stops you from advancing your argument, as if your incessant repetition of the same points makes them true. The "traditional values" argument is also a fallacious one; values in societies and cultures are constantly changing. yet we're not living in caves anymore. We live longer, healthier and better than we did just a few generations ago, yet there are those (and I'm including you in this group) who no doubt think that Leave It To Beaver was a reality show, and that Ward, June, Wally and the Beaver was representative of family life in the 50s and 60s, when it was far from being so. Your attempt to connect abortion with gay marriage is also another excellent example of the foolishness that people will dredge up when they need to grasp at anything to make their "point."

The point you fail to grasp through all the indictments of "cavemen" and "Leave it to Beaver" naivete is that the onus is on you to establish why homosexuality is an identity warranting the benefit of the state. Why is this a preferred social condition that it should be incentivized through state gratuity? Simply because it exists? All kinds of conditions exist that don't affect you. Where does your tolerance end and by what religious tenet of ignorance, intolerance, and naivete have you defined this opposition?

Values in society are constantly changing this is to be sure. They may change in favor of your view or they may change away from your view. Unless of course you are the standard by which all intelligence and enlightenment must be gauged. We may come to find out that homosexuality is overwhelmingly the product of one's inability to cope with a severely dysfunctional family and unskilled, abusive, or unavailable parents. What then? Is this still a condition that warrants State privilege?

Susie and Mary having a marriage license and living next door to you doesn't make society a cesspool, unless you're willing to participate in making it so. Susie and Mary want the same things you do; a job and the ability to spend their lives together in a loving and committed relationship.

Well then you should readily congratulate them on having this relationship. This is a right the State cannot grant nor take away. You still haven't established why this relationship is worthy of incentive just as you've not established why all should be granted a GI Bill. It's funny to me how sensible ideals are until you add "sexual preference".

You're the one advancing all the silly arguments about the fallacious repercussions that will not occur, and just because you say they will doesn't present a cohesive argument that your irrational fears will come to pass.

There were many reasons presented, but you've only latched on to the ones you felt you could address.

Gay marriage is legal in five states, one of which it has been legal in for five years. The world is not ending, and will not, just because you have self esteem problems, and need to worry about that which doesn't affect you. In your never ending attempt to worry about that which you shouldn't, you're making up stuff (I can't use a better word, because there isn't one more appropriate) out of thin air, based on the lies of desperate worry warts before and around you, and that is neither reality nor justification. The world changes, things happen, and some people go to their graves thinking that they were right, and they do so needlessly.

Of course these traits are not exclusive to the bigoted, ignorant, and naive Christian right.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're not paying attention to the arguments presented OldMan. GI Bills and/or benefits paid to veterans for example are not policies of ignorance, fear, and bigotry against non-veterans. It is to incentivize a behavior. The idea that "it doesn't affect me" is solid foundation for policy initiative is laughable and completely baseless. How about answering why a homosexual relationship should be incentivized by the State?

It should be incentivized by the State because two adult, consenting, people, whose beliefs, actions, and behavior, harm no one else, want the same benefits given to other consenting adult relationships. I'm not the one who's not paying attention; you don't want to give them those benefits "just because."

Spare me the tripe about "invasion of privacy". They are requesting the State acknowledge their union. i.e. they're not interested in keeping their relationship private.

False, and you know it. The state acknowledging their right to a union, doesn't mean they can't keep it private. Married heterosexuals have their union acknowledged by the state, but the depths and details of their relationships are still kept private, if they choose to do so. This is one of the points you can't seem to get past; it's nobody's business whether two consenting adult men marry, or whether it's two consenting opposite-sex people.

It must always be based on religious belief right? Relativists VS moralists. Where does your tolerance end and what religious view facilitates those limits? By what moral authority do you deem pedophilia wrong for example?

Another tired old red herring. For you to argue that it isn't always based on religious belief is disingenuous, and you know it. Your constant attempts to sneak the issue of paedophiles into the discussion on homosexuality shows exactly how desperate you are for a substantive argument.

The point you fail to grasp through all the indictments of "cavemen" and "Leave it to Beaver" naivete is that the onus is on you to establish why homosexuality is an identity warranting the benefit of the state. Why is this a preferred social condition that it should be incentivized through state gratuity? Simply because it exists? All kinds of conditions exist that don't affect you. Where does your tolerance end and by what religious tenet of ignorance, intolerance, and naivete have you defined this opposition?

My tolerance ends when an adult engages in behavior with an non-consenting person, and when behavior harms someone else. It isn't complicated, although you'd like it to be, so you could continue to blather on about your moral superiority.

Values in society are constantly changing this is to be sure. They may change in favor of your view or they may change away from your view. Unless of course you are the standard by which all intelligence and enlightenment must be gauged. We may come to find out that homosexuality is overwhelmingly the product of one's inability to cope with a severely dysfunctional family and unskilled, abusive, or unavailable parents. What then? Is this still a condition that warrants State privilege?

If we do find out that is the reason for homosexuality, it wouldn't matter. One can't put the horse back in the barn if the barn is no longer there. That argument is an attempt by some to easily scapegoat something they don't understand, and don't want to attempt to understand. It's an easy argument to come up with, thus providing a quick "answer."

Well then you should readily congratulate them on having this relationship. This is a right the State cannot grant nor take away. You still haven't established why this relationship is worthy of incentive just as you've not established why all should be granted a GI Bill. It's funny to me how sensible ideals are until you add "sexual preference".

It's worthy of incentive because two consenting adults deem it so. You haven't provided any valid reasons why it shouldn't be incentivized.

There were many reasons presented, but you've only latched on to the ones you felt you could address.

Oh, the irony.

Of course these traits are not exclusive to the bigoted, ignorant, and naive Christian right.

You're absolutely right, yet all their incessant blathering about them having their rights taken away, and being forced to like homosexuality, and having their marriage diminished because of gay marriage, and all the other myriad fallacious old arguments they present, show exactly how bigoted, naive, and ignorant, they are.

The facts remain unchanged; the battle against gay rights is being lost, slowly, but surely, because more people are realizing that it's none of their business, and all the tripe that opponents sling against the wall isn't going to change that. Millions of words have been written, spoken, and otherwise communicated on this issue, and the ones against legalization of gay marriage are going to be shown to have wasted energy. Even some on the far right are beginning to see that it's a lost battle, and that they need to focus more on the real ways to save the institution of marriage, by focusing on cheating spouses, the porn epidemic on the internet (the biggest commercial use of the internet, and it isn't from gays), the trend toward people marrying later in life, the trend toward more people cohabiting before marriage, the trend of people having babies before they marry, and any of a number of other trends which are easy to ignore, and which provide a convenient excuse for targeting a group of people who are "different."

This country has far more pressing problems than whether Susie and Marry obtain a marriage license; it's time we started addressing them, and stopped blaming Susie and Mary for the problems we create for ourselves. It will never cease to amaze me how energy people expend on something that affects such a small percentage of the population. The Right, which likes to think of itself as conservative, is always blathering on about personal responsibility, yet they fail to acknowledge their own lack of personal responsibility in allowing others to control their beliefs and actions and emotions, and it would amusing if it weren't so pathetic that they don't even see that.