Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 3 Down, 47 Left To Go

3 Down, 47 Left To Go (Page 7)
Thread Tools
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
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."
It's not about what I do and don't want to give them. I'd have been fine granting civil unions to any two who want it quite some time ago, but that hasn't happened. Instead, there's only a small handful of States with varying degrees of acknowledgement for gay marriage. I can tell you the reason for this is that a compelling case has not been made for why gay marriage should be incentivized by the State. There are a great many who have beliefs, actions, and behaviors that harm no one else and they're still not eligible for a GI Bill for example or Social Security etc... There are specific conditions in this country that are preferred by the State and incentivized. Why should gay marriage be one of them? Because they consent to one another? Can you cite any other Federal program (incentive, initiative) that uses "consent" as any kind of metric? Is this the State criteria for straight marriage or rather just a prerequisite of any relationship or agreement?

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's the government's business when you appeal to them for the benefit of the acknowledgement. Have you been legally married? There's paperwork you know. You can't claim you want the relationship private when you go to the courthouse and sign documentation with details of each party involved in the union. This doesn't mean the government is allowed in your bedroom this I grant you, but we're talking about two different things here. You can't say "butt out" and be subject to any less "State intrusion" than heterosexual couples.

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.
There are Biblical principles of care for children just as there are Biblical principles of scrutiny regarding homosexuality and a host of other societal anomalies, but opposition to gay marriage always gets the "Christian-right" indictment while opposition to pedophilia or other conditions seem to get the pass as "common sense", but why? Do you deem pedophilia wrong? By what moral authority/religious dogma have you done so? If not religious indoctrination, is it because "victimization" and "consent" are legal constructs?

So is opposition to gay marriage.

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.
I'm not trying to complicate anything. Pedophilia is not defined by whether or not the child consents to a sexual relationship. It is defined by an adult attraction to children and criminalized by acting on the attraction. Is it wrong in your opinion for an adult to have sex with a consenting child? If yes, why? By what moral authority?

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.
Well if the barn isn't there, then you'll likely not be eligible for the State-granted "barn benefit", but this isn't unfair to non barn owners. It's an incentive to own barns.

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."
What's so complicated about homosexuality? It's a same sex attraction. I'm not scapegoating anything. I'm asking why the State should incentivize gay marriage. By this logic, should all be eligible for the GI Bill having served or not? If no, why not?

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.
It's currently not. I mean we can play pretend all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the obvious burden is on you to establish why homosexuals should be granted the same marital benefit of incentive designed to bolster a particular form of relationship. You can't establish this any more than you can establish why all should be eligible for the GI Bill. There are consenting adults who deem any number of things worthy of some benefit and they will lobby for it like anyone else. This doesn't mean they're correct. Worse, you can't even make the case for them. "Because they want it" doesn't really hold up. You're the one doing the States count, do the math.

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.
Those are some of the arguments, but not all. I'm not sure you're qualified to indict others of bigotry. I'd be just as willing to believe you're as bigoted in some fashion as anyone opposed to gay marriage. Again, one could be in support of gay marriage and still be a bigot. How about addressing the more difficult questions OldMan? I'll wait...

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.
Yes and no. In some cases, the battle for gay rights is being won, but in others it's not a matter of whether or not your relationship is the business of the people, but whether the State is in the business of validating your relationship.

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."
These have all been battles fought and lost on a daily basis. There's absolutely nothing the "far right" can do about porn for example, or marrying later in life. They might however, argue that validation of homosexuality (a mental disorder) is yet another sign of the times. That in fact these are all part of a more pervasive problem of overall relativism. Que sera sera. If it feels good, do it. There are no laws, only feelings and any attempt at arbitrating these conditions makes one merely judgmental because of course it is morally wrong to induce your morals on another. Right?

Besides, if we've learned anything from Obama, it's that you can fight many battles at once. There's no doubt the Christian right will lose. They'll be among the first to tell you this.

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.
The left, which likens itself to tolerance is also among the many who oppose gay marriage. That must really throw all of your partisan stereotypes into complete upheaval. In fact, I'd argue that this is one issue in which the two parties have the most solidarity.

Anyway, you're still missing the point by a mile OldMan. No one is saying gays can't enter a lifelong commitment unless of course you're telling me they currently cannot. You haven't established why it's necessary for the State to validate a gay relationship by offering its incentive any more than you can establish why all should be granted a GI Bill.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is it wrong in your opinion for an adult to have sex with a consenting child? If yes, why? By what moral authority?

One reason is that an overwhelming majority of those who consent discover ex post facto they would not have.

Edit: another reason has been brought up by Glenn a few times. It's been shown children lack a fully functional decision making process.
( Last edited by subego; May 24, 2009 at 04:41 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One reason is that an overwhelming majority of those who consent discover ex post facto they would not have.
This is of course no different than adult relationships and nature merely follows.

Edit: another reason has been brought up by Glenn a few times. It's been shown children lack a fully functional decision making process.
Right, based on development that in some cases continues to age 25. Still, why not include the wealth of adults that lack a fully functional decision making process? Likewise, why are we not arguing for the rights of brothers and sisters to marry or first cousins or polygamists? Why are we not fighting for all to receive the GI Bill or Social Security?

I appreciate your input subego. My problem with much of this is the partisan accusations crammed into rant-filled posts and I'm curious how others measure up to the ol' "marionette" stick they've crafted for "the right". So far, it seems many are representing a view that are really confusing their own personal emotional investment with an informed, reasoned, and thoughtful arrival at a conclusion. It's bothersome to me that this lack of substance is then used to bash others over the head for "bigotry".
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I appreciate your input subego. My problem with much of this is the partisan accusations crammed into rant-filled posts and I'm curious how others measure up to the ol' "marionette" stick they've crafted for "the right". So far, it seems many are representing a view that are really confusing their own personal emotional investment with an informed, reasoned, and thoughtful arrival at a conclusion. It's bothersome to me that this lack of substance is then used to bash others over the head for "bigotry".
It doesn't take a lot of thought and reason to realize that two consenting adults, who harm no one, including themselves, should be able to join in legal union, except to those who have to keep stretching to find reasons, and then attempt to disguise their discussion as logic.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
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).
I agree. Baby steps. They've bit off more than they can chew. They'll get it choked down eventually, but there will be residual soreness that would best have been avoided.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is of course no different than adult relationships and nature merely follows.

Overwhelming majority?


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, based on development that in some cases continues to age 25. Still, why not include the wealth of adults that lack a fully functional decision making process? Likewise, why are we not arguing for the rights of brothers and sisters to marry or first cousins or polygamists? Why are we not fighting for all to receive the GI Bill or Social Security?

Are you talking about marriage WRT decision making process? I'd probably be for it.

With brothers and sisters, you have a serious inbreeding issue, as well as another situation wherein you'd be talking about overwhelming majority for whom you can directly point to some horrible situation which brought the idea about.

With first cousins, this only drops to the inbreeding issue, and it's a smaller one at that. If it could be worked around, it should be legal.

Polygamy should be legal.

The G.I. bill thing is a different argument. I can only manage at a time.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
My problem with much of this is the partisan accusations crammed into rant-filled post...

I wholeheartedly concur.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 10:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
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?
No, unwillingness to accept the evidence. The evidence that gays deserve fair treatment is as strong as the evidence that interracial couples do, it's only the lingering resistance that differs.

What if reason and/or evidence leads one to conclude homosexuality is a mental disorder?
I agree that if things were different, then they wouldn't be the same.

Exactly, just as society has defined young people out of social security.
Young people participate in social security all the time, where do you think the money comes from

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?
The same is true of convicted murderers, we can kill them without consent but we can't have sex with them without consent.

This was in response to your example of vets
That was not an example, it was a counter-example. An example needs to be representative. A counter-example only needs to be contradictory. In this case, my counter-example demonstrates that avoiding "validation for a mental illness" is not a reasonable goal for our society. All your counter-example of closet gays demonstrates is that not all gays want to get married, and no one ever claimed they did.

So what's his reason supposed to be? Change is scary?

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.
That's perfectly consistent with what I said: if the discrimination has no reason, it's bigotry. Veterans benefits have a reason, it's an attempt to un-disadvantage a disadvantaged group. Being a soldier would be a severe financial hardship if not for all the benefits designed specifically to compensate for this hardship. Are straight married people under some disadvantage I'm not aware of?

Do single gays spend less on fashion than gays in relationships?
I'm sorry, I meant to say "weddings" not "marriages." Weddings are big business.

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.
And how would these provisions be cheaper if it was called "civil union?"

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?
Only that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Gays are among those People from whose consent, our country purportedly believes, our government derives its power. Gays represent 10% of the population, but want to be represented in only 2% of marriages; it's not even as high as their equal share. This country was literally founded on the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of offspring, and what could be more representative of a successful such pursuit than a marriage? To oppose this for no more reason than "convince me why not," one might as well oppose gays' rights to life and liberty for no other reason than "why is a gay man equal to a straight man that he should receive the benefits of the state?"

No. You're intolerant of those opposed to gay marriage by calling them bigots.
If you're calling me a bigot just for using the word, doesn't that automatically make you a bigot against me? And if you agree you are, then you must also be a bigot against yourself for calling yourself a bigot? Is anyone in the world, past or present, an actual bigot? If yes, does your calling them one make you a bigot?

You cite their lack of reasoning as the defining trait because you simply fail to accept the validity of their views.
You're the one who said there's no compelling reason to oppose it! I do accept the validity of their views. There's no reason that bigoted views are "invalid."

No. Calling someone "bigoted" by virtue of the fact that they disagree with you on a singular issue is intolerant of dissenting opinion.
Only if "bigot" constitutes intolerance, and I'm not intolerant of bigots.

It may not be as desirable as straight marriage and as such may not enjoy the same incentives granted the more desirable.
There's your "assumption about a condition," right there. "Less desirable" or "undesirable," either meets that condition.

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.
I've only had one argument, that opposition without reason constitutes prejudice. Your counter-examples have reasons, that's why they're not prejudiced.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With brothers and sisters, you have a serious inbreeding issue...
ebuddy made me wonder... most people would say that the potential inbred children that often result from sibling pairings are the victims of this act. With modern medicine, birth control can be far more reliable than ever before. I wonder if that would allow siblings who want to do this to argue that the potential victims can be spared, and if this taboo will eventually die off for that reason.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 24, 2009, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I wonder if that would allow siblings who want to do this to argue that the potential victims can be spared, and if this taboo will eventually die off for that reason.

Honestly, I think it would/should (like with first cousins), if it weren't for the direct connection between that desire and a ****ed upbringing.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No, unwillingness to accept the evidence. The evidence that gays deserve fair treatment is as strong as the evidence that interracial couples do, it's only the lingering resistance that differs.
First of all it's more than lingering, it's still prevalent. Secondly, I've already established that there's nothing unfair about recruiting tools. The GI Bill for example is not intended to overcome hardship, it is a recruiting tool. The marriage benefit is intended to recruit couples into a preferred condition.

The same is true of convicted murderers, we can kill them without consent but we can't have sex with them without consent.
Consent comes in the form of conviction through the willful breaking of law. Animals don't have this benefit of the doubt. Conjugal visits are allowed in 6 states. California for example allows same-sex conjugal visits. This includes those with life sentences.


That was not an example, it was a counter-example. An example needs to be representative. A counter-example only needs to be contradictory. In this case, my counter-example demonstrates that avoiding "validation for a mental illness" is not a reasonable goal for our society.
Your counter-examples did nothing to demonstrate why validating mental illness is a reasonable goal for our society.

So what's his reason supposed to be? Change is scary?
Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.

There's simply no compelling reason to grant validity to a mental illness. You can read the link if you're curious.

That's perfectly consistent with what I said: if the discrimination has no reason, it's bigotry.
It's not discrimination. It is a judgment. We are not necessarily "discriminatory" of schizophrenics for example, we make judgments on how to regard them and we generally treat them for the disorder, not try to convince them that the rest of society is seeing things wrongly.

Veterans benefits have a reason... spin... spin...
Yes, they do have a reason. They are a recruiting tool. They are used to encourage a particular behavior.

And how would these provisions be cheaper if it was called "civil union?"
I don't know. I suppose you could start by asking why this provision does not suffice for gays.

Only that all men are created equal
Yes, just as a young adult is equal to an elderly adult, subject to different benefits to encourage specific behaviors...

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
Sounds like Creationist mumble-jumble, but life-long commitments are not those granted by the State nor can they be taken away. Gays can still be just as gay as they want. Nowhere are the marital benefits granted by the State considered inalienable. For one thing, you lose them upon divorce.

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
All are equally free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
... and the governed have overwhelmingly spoken out against validating gay marriage, a mental illness; relegating it as an equal to that of straight marriage.

Gays are among those People from whose consent, our country purportedly believes, our government derives its power.
They are lobbying just as any special interest and their voices are being heard. A bigoted society would not allow for this hearing.

Gays represent 10% of the population, but want to be represented in only 2% of marriages; it's not even as high as their equal share. This country was literally founded on the pursuit of happiness, not the pursuit of offspring, and what could be more representative of a successful such pursuit than a marriage?
The 10% figure is entirely contrived. Marriage is not the vehicle of happiness for the two entering the relationship. Happiness or in the least, contentment with one another is the prerequisite to any relationship or agreement. Marriage does not constitute the pursuit of happiness, but is merely a byproduct of it. The GI Bill is a recruiting tool for the fit to serve. Marriage is a recruiting tool for the fit to marry.

To oppose this for no more reason than "convince me why not," one might as well oppose gays' rights to life and liberty for no other reason than "why is a gay man equal to a straight man that he should receive the benefits of the state?"
You're the one defining marriage as a "right to life and liberty". No one is denying gay relationships. They are as free and open to express their love for one another as any heterosexual couple. I'm not happy nor can I pursue life and liberty if I'm not eligible for the GI Bill???

If you're calling me a bigot just for using the word, doesn't that automatically make you a bigot against me? And if you agree you are, then you must also be a bigot against yourself for calling yourself a bigot? Is anyone in the world, past or present, an actual bigot? If yes, does your calling them one make you a bigot?
Screwy indeed. We may all in fact be bigoted and that by definition you simply meet the criteria more squarely.

You're the one who said there's no compelling reason to oppose it! I do accept the validity of their views. There's no reason that bigoted views are "invalid."
Not only do you regard their views as invalid, you've maintained they have no reason at all. What is invalid in your opinion Uncle? I have a feeling there's a dizzying, spin-filled explanation in order.

There's no compelling reason for me to oppose it, I'm but one man. I may be wrong. Where we differ is that I believe the arguments against it have merit and they are not founded merely in bigotry. I don't regard their arguments as being "against gays". I regard them as "against gay marriage" or even "for straight marriage". The image of formal matrimony between a man and a woman remains positive regardless of what I personally see when I look around. To those with a positive image of marriage between a man and a woman, there's no reason to include the mentally ill in the image by incentivizing it with the remaining 90% of tax payers' funds.

Only if "bigot" constitutes intolerance, and I'm not intolerant of bigots.
The ad hom is intended to silence those with a differing view by marginalizing their credibility. This is intolerant.

There's your "assumption about a condition," right there. "Less desirable" or "undesirable," either meets that condition.
A $10,000 winning is desirable. A $100,000 winning is more desirable. There is a well-documented, preferred condition. It is this condition the State is attempting to recruit.

I've only had one argument, that opposition without reason constitutes prejudice. Your counter-examples have reasons, that's why they're not prejudiced.
You seem a smidgen conflicted. More time to work this out maybe? Opposition to gay marriage has reasons regardless of whether or not you're able to accept them as valid or even existent.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 10:34 AM
 
More and more, ebuddy is making it clear that he views homosexuality as a mental illness, thus making it clear that he's been reading from early 20th century pop psychology books, and thus isn't going to change his mind. Apparently he's got it all figured out.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Right, based on development that in some cases continues to age 25. Still, why not include the wealth of adults that lack a fully functional decision making process? Likewise, why are we not arguing for the rights of brothers and sisters to marry or first cousins or polygamists?
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
It doesn't take a lot of thought and reason to realize that two consenting adults, who harm no one, including themselves, should be able to join in legal union, except to those who have to keep stretching to find reasons, and then attempt to disguise their discussion as logic.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Overwhelming majority?


With brothers and sisters, you have a serious inbreeding issue, as well as another situation wherein you'd be talking about overwhelming majority for whom you can directly point to some horrible situation which brought the idea about.

With first cousins, this only drops to the inbreeding issue, and it's a smaller one at that. If it could be worked around, it should be legal.
....
Polygamy should be legal..
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
ebuddy made me wonder... most people would say that the potential inbred children that often result from sibling pairings are the victims of this act. With modern medicine, birth control can be far more reliable than ever before. I wonder if that would allow siblings who want to do this to argue that the potential victims can be spared, and if this taboo will eventually die off for that reason.
Polygamy
I have posted several times that there are lawyers for FLDS that have the paperwork ready to file if SS marriage makes it to the SCOTUS.

Siblings: according to this CNN report on a German couple fight to stay out of jail, Germany lags behind much of the enlightend EU in legalizing incest.
YouTube - German brother and sister practice incest
First cousin marriage is already legal. Darwin was married his first cousin, as were their grandparents. Werner Von Braun and HG Wells were also married to first cousins.

Two consenting adults who harm no one, including themselves? Playing "devils advocate," would that include two sisters or brothers who wanted to get married. What about an old brother and post menopause sister? (or a sterilized brother and sister)
( Last edited by Chongo; May 25, 2009 at 01:27 PM. )
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Playing "devils advocate," would that include two sisters or brothers who wanted to get married.

As I said, this is another overwhelming majority situation.

I don't have any issue with it in and of itself, as I don't with most consensual things.

I do have an issue with the type of upbringing that precipitates it, because an overwhelming amount of the time it's something really bad. Often bad enough to be considered criminal.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
First of all it's more than lingering, it's still prevalent. Secondly, I've already established that there's nothing unfair about recruiting tools. The GI Bill for example is not intended to overcome hardship, it is a recruiting tool.
Yes, overcoming hardship is one form of recruiting tool, similar to paying moving expenses for a new hire, it removes the hardship or expense as a discouragement, it levels the playing field. If there was no hardship involved with joining the army, or if GI benefits were in some other way out of proportion with the costs to soldiers from soldiering, then that would be prejudice. There is nothing inherently unfair about recruiting tools, but that doesn't mean that recruiting tools can't be unfair, it just means that being a recruiting tool does not make something unfair that is otherwise fair.

The marriage benefit is intended to recruit couples into a preferred condition.
You presuppose your conclusion, that straight marriage is a preferred condition. That's prejudice.

Your counter-examples did nothing to demonstrate why validating mental illness is a reasonable goal for our society.
I think it did. Don't you think that in the case of veterans with PTSD for example, validating their mental illness is a reasonable goal for our society?

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.
So his reason is he put words in his opponents' mouths and then attacks those words? They call that a straw-man. The gay marriage lobby is not trying to get into Good Housekeeping.

There's simply no compelling reason to grant validity to a mental illness.
First of all, yes there is (the PTSD example for one), and second we have already established that homosexuality is not a mental illness, at least in cases where it doesn't cause distress to the person who has it. Gays who feel "gay pride" and who want to get gay-married are not in the closet, they aren't experiencing any suffering from being gay, and they're not in denial about being gay (to address the arguments you've tried so far).

It's not discrimination. It is a judgment. We are not necessarily "discriminatory" of schizophrenics for example, we make judgments on how to regard them and we generally treat them for the disorder, not try to convince them that the rest of society is seeing things wrongly.
I was using this definition of "discrimination" from the OS X dictionary: 2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. If you prefer I can change it to "differential treatment."

Yes, they do have a reason. They are a recruiting tool. They are used to encourage a particular behavior.
More to the point, they are used to remove an inherent disincentive from a particular behavior. If GI benefits were greater than the inherent GI costs, they would be unfair.

I don't know. I suppose you could start by asking why this provision does not suffice for gays.
They never argued the "costs" of marriages, you did.

Yes, just as a young adult is equal to an elderly adult, subject to different benefits to encourage specific behaviors...
What specific behaviors? The government is in the business of encouraging being elderly now? You're talking nonsense.

All are equally free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
You have stated that straights' pursuit of happiness is "preferred" over gays'. That is not equally free, that is preferentially free.

... and the governed have overwhelmingly spoken out against validating gay marriage
If the governed want their government to be a prejudiced one, that is their right, that's how the concept works. Regardless, they won't for much longer in this case. All it will take is waiting for the prejudiced older generations to pass on, as is the case for all prejudices. All we're really talking about is what history will call them afterwards.

The 10% figure is entirely contrived.
Source?

We may all in fact be bigoted and that by definition you simply meet the criteria more squarely.
It's clear your definition is absurd.

Not only do you regard their views as invalid, you've maintained they have no reason at all.
Your words, not mine

There's no compelling reason for me to oppose it, I'm but one man. I may be wrong. Where we differ is that I believe the arguments against it have merit and they are not founded merely in bigotry. I don't regard their arguments as being "against gays". I regard them as "against gay marriage" or even "for straight marriage". The image of formal matrimony between a man and a woman remains positive regardless of what I personally see when I look around.
I understand you have sympathy for those who take pride in their de facto supremacy. It's no different from whites who feel pride in pure-bred white marriages, scorning interracial marriages. It's perfectly fair for them to hold those views, the only part that isn't fair is for those views to be enforced on everyone by the state.

To those with a positive image of marriage between a man and a woman, there's no reason to include the mentally ill in the image by incentivizing it with the remaining 90% of tax payers' funds.
Tax payers' funds, where do you get this from? If anything, gays undoubtedly contribute more taxes than their representative share, due to fewer child tax credits.

The ad hom is intended to silence those with a differing view by marginalizing their credibility.
Straw-man. I never intended to silence bigots. They are free to be as vocal as everyone else. I have a question for you, is it your intent to "silence" me when you call me a "relativist?" What does that make you, in your eyes? If you want to try to marginalize my credibility by calling me a "relativist" or "liberal," be my guest. I don't think it will get you very far, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

There is a well-documented, preferred condition. It is this condition the State is attempting to recruit.
You're saying that the state should be encouraging people to be straight. That's logically equivalent to discouraging gays. That's prejudice. Again you presuppose your conclusion.

You seem a smidgen conflicted. More time to work this out maybe? Opposition to gay marriage has reasons regardless of whether or not you're able to accept them as valid or even existent.
Yes it has reasons, specious ones, none of which are more convincing than the specious reasoning to oppose schizophrenic marriages on the grounds that schizophrenia is an STD.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, overcoming hardship is one form of recruiting tool, similar to paying moving expenses for a new hire, it removes the hardship or expense as a discouragement, it levels the playing field. If there was no hardship involved with joining the army, or if GI benefits were in some other way out of proportion with the costs to soldiers from soldiering, then that would be prejudice. There is nothing inherently unfair about recruiting tools, but that doesn't mean that recruiting tools can't be unfair, it just means that being a recruiting tool does not make something unfair that is otherwise fair.
It is an incentive to serve just as many other benefits provided them. Using your logic, anyone who moves anywhere should be eligible for having their moving expenses paid.

You presuppose your conclusion, that straight marriage is a preferred condition. That's prejudice.
You're presupposing another conclusion by denying it. That's lacking judgment.

I think it did. Don't you think that in the case of veterans with PTSD for example, validating their mental illness is a reasonable goal for our society?
No. I think validating their mental illness is a reasonable goal for treating their condition. Don't you think we should likewise validate homosexuality as a mental illness so we can treat them too?

So his reason is he put words in his opponents' mouths and then attacks those words? They call that a straw-man. The gay marriage lobby is not trying to get into Good Housekeeping.
No, some of his reasons are given in the link you didn't read. He doesn't have to put words in anyone's mouth. That's what they're saying. I've given you the example in California to affirm he's right.

First of all, yes there is (the PTSD example for one), and second we have already established that homosexuality is not a mental illness, at least in cases where it doesn't cause distress to the person who has it.
I disagree. It has caused a degree of stress in all who "have it".

Gays who feel "gay pride" and who want to get gay-married are not in the closet, they aren't experiencing any suffering from being gay, and they're not in denial about being gay (to address the arguments you've tried so far).
There are fat people marching with pride for being overweight. They're essentially marching for their eating disorder. It doesn't mean they're healthy. These fat people may not be in denial about being fat, that much is apparent. Many if not all of them are in denial about lacking discipline, having an eating problem, or an eating disorder. (to remind you of an argument you skipped over twice now)

More to the point, they are used to remove an inherent disincentive from a particular behavior. If GI benefits were greater than the inherent GI costs, they would be unfair.
Are you saying the marriage benefit is more costly than marriage? I don't get your point here. The Gi Bill is intended to incentivize a specific segment of society to join the military. The marital benefit is to incentivize a specific segment of society to marry.

You have stated that straights' pursuit of happiness is "preferred" over gays'. That is not equally free, that is preferentially free.
Strawman. You said homosexuals eat their young.

The strength of your argument is becoming more apparent with every post. Gays and straights are both equally eligible to pursue happiness. Happiness is not granted by the marital benefit. Happiness and/or contentment is the prerequisite of entering any bond, relationship, or agreement.

If the governed want their government to be a prejudiced one, that is their right, that's how the concept works. Regardless, they won't for much longer in this case. All it will take is waiting for the prejudiced older generations to pass on, as is the case for all prejudices. All we're really talking about is what history will call them afterwards.
Who knows, they may refer to this generation as the greatest generation that ever lived as has been said of generations before us.

Source?
Why? You don't read 'em. You got any sources?

Your words, not mine
You're conflicted.

I understand you have sympathy for those who take pride in their de facto supremacy.
Supremacy would be to argue for why straights are better than gays. I've not said that straights are better than gays any more than an engineer is superior to a drive-thru worker or why a psychologist is superior to the schizophrenic. I've said that straight marriages are given State incentive as the preferred marital condition. Again, by your logic everyone should be given a GI Bill and all should have their moving expenses paid because they're moving. None of this makes any sense.

It's no different from whites who feel pride in pure-bred white marriages, scorning interracial marriages.
It's different because it's the difference between genetics and mental illness. I understand you have sympathy for the mentally ill, but this doesn't mean society regards them in the same way as you.

It's perfectly fair for them to hold those views, the only part that isn't fair is for those views to be enforced on everyone by the state.
So... it's morally wrong to impose your morals on others? Nonsense indeed.

Tax payers' funds, where do you get this from? If anything, gays undoubtedly contribute more taxes than their representative share, due to fewer child tax credits.
You're saying there are more contributing gays than there are childless single people contributing?

Straw-man. I never intended to silence bigots. They are free to be as vocal as everyone else. I have a question for you, is it your intent to "silence" me when you call me a "relativist?" What does that make you, in your eyes? If you want to try to marginalize my credibility by calling me a "relativist" or "liberal," be my guest. I don't think it will get you very far, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
When did I call you a relativist? You're flummoxed.

You're saying that the state should be encouraging people to be straight. That's logically equivalent to discouraging gays. That's prejudice. Again you presuppose your conclusion.
I never said the government is encouraging you to be straight any more than my company is encouraging people to be gay by hosting a gay pride rally. The government is incentivizing the well-documented, preferred condition of a man and woman in marriage. You can still be gay if you want, it's not the government's business unless you appeal to them for the incentive.

Yes it has reasons, specious ones, none of which are more convincing than the specious reasoning to oppose schizophrenic marriages on the grounds that schizophrenia is an STD.
Not any less specious than the reasons I'm seeing from you to be honest. It has never once been suggested that schizophrenia is an STD and classification removed to mitigate problems caused by the diagnosis itself. More absurdity. I think you need more time.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 05:16 PM
 
Meghan McCain, one of the smarter Republicans around; she doesn't have to invent nonsense like "incentivizing" rights, or hiding behind a fallacious defense of mental illness.

Meghan McCain to GOP: Let Gays Marry  | News | Advocate.com

"For me," she wrote in the New York Daily News , "this is about treating all of my friends, and all of our brothers, sisters, children and grandchildren the same as I want to be treated. Equality under the law and personal freedoms are what make America the greatest country in the world, and they are core values that I hold as a Republican."

McCain recently spoke at a Log Cabin Republican dinner, calling the denial of marriage rights "un-Republican ... at its fundamental core, it's un-American."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It is an incentive to serve just as many other benefits provided them. Using your logic, anyone who moves anywhere should be eligible for having their moving expenses paid.
If the government was in the business of providing that service to most but denying it to a specific minority, I would agree with that.

You're presupposing another conclusion by denying it. That's lacking judgment.
Yes, I presuppose equality until shown otherwise. That's not lacking judgment, it's lacking prejudgment.

No. I think validating their mental illness is a reasonable goal for treating their condition. Don't you think we should likewise validate homosexuality as a mental illness so we can treat them too?
I would if it was one.

No, some of his reasons are given in the link you didn't read. He doesn't have to put words in anyone's mouth. That's what they're saying. I've given you the example in California to affirm he's right.
I read your link through twice. All I saw was empty rhetoric. The gay marriage movement isn't trying to legislate their way into Good Housekeeping; as a private business Good Housekeeping is free to be as prejudiced as their shareholders can stand. The gay marriage movement is just trying to keep Good Housekeeping from using the state to help implement that prejudice.

I disagree. It has caused a degree of stress in all who "have it".
If that's the best you can do, I think this discussion has run its course.

There are fat people marching with pride for being overweight. They're essentially marching for their eating disorder.
But they're not, being fat is not the same as having an eating disorder. Being fat is a physical disorder, the compulsion (or aversion) to eat is the mental disorder. If you could show that they were proud of the eating disorder, or that the eating disorder itself did not cause them distress, then I would agree with you that in those cases eating disorders are not mental illness. I'm not aware of any who fit that description, but I have to admit I know fewer fat people than gay people.

Actually truth be told, I'm a little prejudiced against fat people. That might be an interesting discussion some day. But I still oppose letting my prejudice against fatties be codified into law...

Are you saying the marriage benefit is more costly than marriage?
Of course, what's costly about marriage (to the participants)? I already asked that in this thread and no one answered. I certainly don't know of any ways in which being married is costly.

Strawman. You said homosexuals eat their young.

...Gays and straights are both equally eligible to pursue happiness. Happiness is not granted by the marital benefit. Happiness and/or contentment is the prerequisite of entering any bond, relationship, or agreement.
Right, and you've said many times that this happiness, especially long term happiness, of straight couples is "preferred," and that while long term gay relationships are acceptable, long term straight relationships are "preferred" and that's why they're endorsed by the state. How is that not preferential?

It's different because it's the difference between genetics and mental illness.
False dichotomy. Most mental illnesses have a large genetic contribution.

So... it's morally wrong to impose your morals on others? Nonsense indeed.
Nice try, but that's not what I said.

You're saying there are more contributing gays than there are childless single people contributing?
Does the phrase "per capita" mean anything to you?

When did I call you a relativist? You're flummoxed.
Unless I'm mistaken, the many times you characterized the debate as "moralism vs relativism" you were adopting the side of moralism. Did you mean that you were on the side of relativism?

Not any less specious than the reasons I'm seeing from you to be honest. It has never once been suggested that schizophrenia is an STD and classification removed to mitigate problems caused by the diagnosis itself.
There also isn't much prejudice against it that would lead to biased diagnoses in the first place.
     
Penguirl
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mile High
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 25, 2009, 06:12 PM
 
Sorry I am late to the discussion…

It is an incentive to serve just as many other benefits provided them.
As a veteran, I disagree. It is not incentive to serve but rather compensation for sacrifices made.

No. I think validating their mental illness is a reasonable goal for treating their condition. Don't you think we should likewise validate homosexuality as a mental illness so we can treat them too?
If you seriously believe that homosexuality is curable, you are deluding yourself. Yes some people can be goaded into denying their sexual orientation by aversion, reparative therapy, peer pressure, religious fear mongering, etc… to feel welcome in their community, but the vast majority will come back to it sooner or later. It does not go away, it is not an illness to be cured, and repressing it only causes harm in the long run.

I disagree. It has caused a degree of stress in all who "have it".
The stress that some people feel about their sexual orientation is not caused by their orientation in and of itself, but rather is brought about by societal pressures, familial rejection, added legal and tax burdens, etc... If homosexuals were treated the same as heterosexuals, the only stress they would feel is the same day to day stress everyone else experiences.

There are fat people marching with pride for being overweight. They're essentially marching for their eating disorder. It doesn't mean they're healthy. These fat people may not be in denial about being fat, that much is apparent. Many if not all of them are in denial about lacking discipline, having an eating problem, or an eating disorder.
"Fat people marching" as you so eloquently put it has no bearing whatsoever on homosexuality, and if you think that "many if not all of them are in denial about lacking discipline, having an eating problem, or an eating disorder" you are equally out of touch with that group as well.

You come across as someone who thinks they know what's wrong with everyone else, I'm curious as to what your qualifications are?

The Gi Bill is intended to incentivize a specific segment of society to join the military.
No, it is compensation for sacrifices made. If it were an incentive it would be offered up front.

The marital benefit is to incentivize a specific segment of society to marry.
Marriage is not an incentive, it is a civil right and it will be for as long as it is controlled by the state. When the state abolishes the licensing requirements for marriage, and turns control of marriage over to the church (ALL churches), then it will become simply a religious ceremony and no longer a civil right.

Gays and straights are both equally eligible to pursue happiness.
No they are not, not under the law.

Happiness is not granted by the marital benefit. Happiness and/or contentment is the prerequisite of entering any bond, relationship, or agreement.
It's not about happiness, it's about equal treatment under the law, equal legal and civil rights.

Supremacy would be to argue for why straights are better than gays. I've not said that straights are better than gays any more than an engineer is superior to a drive-thru worker or why a psychologist is superior to the schizophrenic. I've said that straight marriages are given State incentive as the preferred marital condition.
The key word there, the whole basis of the fight for equality, is in that one little word: preferred. When the government gives preferential treatment to the majority group it is discriminating against the minority, keeping them subjugated. I'm not referring to the age argument as that does not hold water because everyone either reaches the incremental ages that afford new rights or dies. But differences such as race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity are predetermined and not subject to change.

It's different because it's the difference between genetics and mental illness. I understand you have sympathy for the mentally ill, but this doesn't mean society regards them in the same way as you.
Sweetheart, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 70s, and gender identity is due to be removed in the next revision or two. They are not mental illness', they are how people are born. There are very few mental health professionals who proclaim they can "treat" homosexuality or gender identity, and 99% of those who do are coming from an evangelical religious perspective. The psychiatric community knows that there is nothing to treat other than the damage done by a misguided, prejudicial society.

So... it's morally wrong to impose your morals on others?
Yes it is. As long as it's between consenting adults, you cannot hold people to different standards. If you can have a tax benefit for being married, if you can serve in the military, so should everyone regardless of sex, race, religion, orientation or identity.

The government is incentivizing the well-documented, preferred condition of a man and woman in marriage. You can still be gay if you want, it's not the government's business unless you appeal to them for the incentive.
You're being redundant, you've already made that argument. The government has no business rewarding a majority group with a civil right and withholding the same civil right from a minority group.
( Last edited by Penguirl; May 25, 2009 at 06:25 PM. Reason: fix quote, verbiage)
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Meghan McCain, one of the smarter Republicans around; she doesn't have to invent nonsense like "incentivizing" rights, or hiding behind a fallacious defense of mental illness.
She's that girl whose dad ran for President right? The girl whose dad lost to the guy who opposes "gay marriage"?

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Penguirl View Post
Sorry I am late to the discussion…
No apology necessary. As long as you'll indulge some repetitive banter.

As a veteran, I disagree. It is not incentive to serve but rather compensation for sacrifices made.
It really doesn't matter either way. Either it is compensation for what is viewed a mutually beneficial relationship between citizen and State or it's an incentive.

If you seriously believe that homosexuality is curable, you are deluding yourself.
There's equally little to suggest alcoholism is "curable". Pedophiles even less so. Are these not disorders in your opinion?

Yes some people can be goaded into denying their sexual orientation by aversion, reparative therapy, peer pressure, religious fear mongering, etc… to feel welcome in their community, but the vast majority will come back to it sooner or later. It does not go away, it is not an illness to be cured, and repressing it only causes harm in the long run.
Those who do not successfully beat alcoholism for example, experience dire relapses. I appreciate you having come late to the thread, but you accuse me of being redundant below while reiterating the same tired arguments we've already addressed. I'd have an easier time understanding this if you were saying you didn't feel they've been addressed or that you were tired of the entire discussion, but you present the above as if it were fresh.

The stress that some people feel about their sexual orientation is not caused by their orientation in and of itself, but rather is brought about by societal pressures, familial rejection, added legal and tax burdens, etc...
I disagree with the statement as a whole. There is a combination of societal pressures, familial rejection, etc... but there is also the conflict itself. Suicide rates in countries with far more tolerance for homosexuality remain exponentially higher, like in New Zealand for example where the rates match the US rate of attempted suicide among gays. There are several studies showing that in fact the majority of suicide attempts follow the breakup of a gay relationship and in second place; inability to accept one's self.

If homosexuals were treated the same as heterosexuals, the only stress they would feel is the same day to day stress everyone else experiences.
This is simply not true as evidenced by the attempted suicide rates among gays in regions of higher tolerance.

"Fat people marching" as you so eloquently put it has no bearing whatsoever on homosexuality, and if you think that "many if not all of them are in denial about lacking discipline, having an eating problem, or an eating disorder" you are equally out of touch with that group as well.
I'll catch you up. This was in response to Uncle's insistence that the show of "pride" was indicative of mental health. I disagreed and used this as an example.

You come across as someone who thinks they know what's wrong with everyone else, I'm curious as to what your qualifications are?
The same as yours. I support civil unions for any two who wish to marry. I took issue with the notion that there are NO reasons to oppose gay marriage and that NONE of those reasons have merit and that ALL of those who oppose it are bigoted. I disagree and can do so without the ad homs.

No, it is compensation for sacrifices made. If it were an incentive it would be offered up front.
No. It is a recruiting and retention tool. Having moved from conscription to "all volunteer" it was a conscious decision to intensify recruitment efforts to encourage the military as a career opportunity. The ideal was that they had to be convinced, not conscripted. The benefits of the GI Bill have been re-packaged as an incentive to join as are a wealth of other benefits and incentives.

Lieutenant Commander John B White; US Naval Reserve, Ph. D. "The GI Bill: Recruiting Bonus, Retention Onus." Military Review, July-August 2004; "The GI Bill is no longer a reward for service rendered, but an inducement to serve and has become a significant part of recruiters’ pitches.”

Marriage is not an incentive, it is a civil right and it will be for as long as it is controlled by the state. When the state abolishes the licensing requirements for marriage, and turns control of marriage over to the church (ALL churches), then it will become simply a religious ceremony and no longer a civil right.
The definition of "civil rights" must be tempered by acknowledging that membership in institutions is not constitutionally guaranteed. Your State legislature for example is a closed system. You do not get to join and vote on bills simply because you're an opinionated American. My friend, civil rights are inalienable. This means they cannot be granted by government nor taken away. These are the rights that slaves did not have, such as freedom of speech, freedom to assemble... Membership in the AARP is no more a right than having a government job.

No they are not, not under the law.
Yes they are, under the law.

It's not about happiness, it's about equal treatment under the law, equal legal and civil rights.
If it's not about happiness, then we can kindly remove the argument above regarding "pursuit of happiness". Marriage is not a civil right. Equal legal treatment would remove "hate crimes" legislation for example. There's also nothing to suggest that all must be regarded equally. If this were the case, I'd be getting Social Security, A GI BIll, membership in AARP and a government paycheck each month.


The key word there, the whole basis of the fight for equality, is in that one little word: preferred. When the government gives preferential treatment to the majority group it is discriminating against the minority, keeping them subjugated.
They're not being subjugated any more than I am by not using the GI Bill.

But differences such as race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity are predetermined and not subject to change.
This is your opinion and not supported by any empirical evidence. No gay gene has been identified. Differences such as abnormal sexual orientation and conflicted gender identity are the product of psychosocial/environmental factors. This has been identified.

Sweetheart, homosexuality was removed from the DSM in the 70s, and gender identity is due to be removed in the next revision or two.
Dumplin', homosexuality was removed from the DSM because of what was construed as the harmful nature of the diagnosis itself and political pressure. I might add that this classification was removed from the DSM under much protest from the scientific community at the time. As many as four years after the APA vote, 69% of psychiatrists cited homosexuality as a "pathological adaptation." No other such disorder had been reconsidered on these factors nor with as little consideration and discussion. It would be at least another two decades before this would become the consensus view internationally albeit for the same reasons having nothing to do with solid, empirical evidence to the contrary.

They are not mental illness', they are how people are born.
You have absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. This is a popular talking point because people (particularly those advocating legalizing gay marriage) know how important the genetic factor is in acceptance of the condition. They do so by marginalizing the African-American plight in this country.

There are very few mental health professionals who proclaim they can "treat" homosexuality or gender identity, and 99% of those who do are coming from an evangelical religious perspective. The psychiatric community knows that there is nothing to treat other than the damage done by a misguided, prejudicial society.
Have you availed yourself of any statistics on the success rate for "curing" alcoholism or pedophilia? Should we simply throw our hands in the air and encourage those who aren't pedophiles and alcoholics to be more accepting?

Yes it is. As long as it's between consenting adults, you cannot hold people to different standards.
With all due respect, this is woefully naive. We hold people to varying standards all day, every day. From the government on down.

If you can have a tax benefit for being married, if you can serve in the military, so should everyone regardless of sex, race, religion, orientation or identity.
I can't have the same tax benefit as everyone else. I can no longer serve in the military. I can't have the GI Bill. I can't be a Catholic priest because I'm not Catholic. These are all based on varying standards and criteria for institutional membership.

You're being redundant, you've already made that argument. The government has no business rewarding a majority group with a civil right and withholding the same civil right from a minority group.
Nothing you've presented here is fresh. Nothing. Welcome to the discussion.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
As long as you'll indulge some repetitive banter.
Even if it isn't valid.


Nothing you've presented here is fresh. Nothing.
Oh, the irony.

Still trying to tie homosexuality and pedophilia, aren't you? You're losing the battle; accept it, and move on.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 02:40 PM
 
The California Supreme Court has now upheld the ban on gay marriages. I, for one, am glad. But not just because of the gay marriage thing... I think that it is good that they upheld the right of the voters to decide.

California court lets gay marriage ban stand | Reuters
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 02:42 PM
 
I agree that the court should have upheld the amendment, as they have no right to do anything to an amendment.

I'll also repeat myself from an old thread when I say, what kind of idiot lets a simple majority decide a constitutional amendment.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Still trying to tie homosexuality and pedophilia, aren't you? You're losing the battle; accept it, and move on.
I don't think it is a losing battle. Many people believe that the two are related (including myself). No pedophile decides that he would like to be one any more than a gay person decides he wants to be gay (not including "bi" people). If gay people are born with a desire towards others of the same sex, the same can be said of pedophiles. Just saying.

The act is different of course (two consenting adults, vs one adult and one child), but the feelings and urges are related.
     
Penguirl
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Mile High
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
The California Supreme Court has now upheld the ban on gay marriages. I, for one, am glad. But not just because of the gay marriage thing... I think that it is good that they upheld the right of the voters to decide.

California court lets gay marriage ban stand | Reuters
So then you are ok with having a vote on heterosexual marriage, right?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by torsoboy View Post
I don't think it is a losing battle. Many people believe that the two are related (including myself). No pedophile decides that he would like to be one any more than a gay person decides he wants to be gay (not including "bi" people). If gay people are born with a desire towards others of the same sex, the same can be said of pedophiles. Just saying.

The act is different of course (two consenting adults, vs one adult and one child), but the feelings and urges are related.
Not to sound (too) rude, but if "many people" believed in the Tooth Fairy, would that make the Tooth Fairy a valid concept? People who do not know gays and talk with them about "why" they're gay and so on, have no opportunity to disabuse themselves of socially-instilled, false notions. I have a friend who says that he likes MEN, not boys, just like I like WOMEN, not girls. This is a successfully functional orientation, while true pedophiles are neither functional nor successful. (Functional and successful = finding a like-oriented partner who is both legally and cognitively able to give consent.)

There's also some notion that "all pedophiles" are men who prey on boys-this is anything but true. The majority of pedophiles are men, but from the stats I've been able to find, they attack both boys and girls just about equally, which is also the case of female pedophiles.

It's also interesting to note that sexual abuse of minors is a very small percentage of the overall abuse of children. The majority of abuse is physical abuse or neglect, and that's usually perpetrated by females-typically the biological mother. Right up there with that is a new phenomenon: biological mom's pathological "need for a man in her life" winds her up with a loser boyfriend; she goes to work, loser can't handle child care/child crying/whatever, and beats the kid. This is typically seen with infants and young toddlers, by the way, and is a big chunk of "shaken baby syndrome" cases.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 03:47 PM
 
I wonder why California is turning out to be more conservative than east coast states on this issue.

(There's actually an obvious reason, but it's not PC to talk about)
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 04:31 PM
 
And the PWL is about as PC as you can get.
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Not to sound (too) rude, but if "many people" believed in the Tooth Fairy, would that make the Tooth Fairy a valid concept? People who do not know gays and talk with them about "why" they're gay and so on, have no opportunity to disabuse themselves of socially-instilled, false notions. I have a friend who says that he likes MEN, not boys, just like I like WOMEN, not girls. This is a successfully functional orientation, while true pedophiles are neither functional nor successful. (Functional and successful = finding a like-oriented partner who is both legally and cognitively able to give consent.)
It didn't sound too rude, so no offense there. I still hold to my position that many people believe that the two are linked (in origin only, not in the criminal sense).

On another note, our views on reality are only what we define them to be. As soon as we learn something different than what we believe, reality changes for us. To my children, the tooth fairy IS real, but as soon as they learn otherwise, it will cease to be real. So yes, if enough people believed in the tooth fairy, then it would become something known as being "real".
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Penguirl View Post
So then you are ok with having a vote on heterosexual marriage, right?
Sure.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I wonder why California is turning out to be more conservative than east coast states on this issue.

(There's actually an obvious reason, but it's not PC to talk about)
Is it because outside of SF California is a totally conservative state with a republican governor?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is simply not true as evidenced by the attempted suicide rates among gays in regions of higher tolerance.

I'm interested in people's commentary on the New Zealand results:






Short form: males who have some form of same sex attraction are slightly over 3 times more likely to have attempted suicide than people who only have opposite sex attraction.
( Last edited by subego; May 26, 2009 at 06:03 PM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 06:29 PM
 
Thanks for finding that for us, subego. My first reaction: they didn't look at very many people in the same-sex attraction categories, and I would be very wary of sampling bias (drama queens, so to speak). Can you link to the source?

edit: two more thoughts. The suicide attempt rate strikes me as surprisingly high in all conditions, and again I wonder how they're finding their subjects. Also google tells me that whites are almost 3x more likely to commit suicide than non-whites, and males are 4x more likely than females. Are we thinking that being white or male is some sort of aversive, unpleasant or distressing condition? And did this study properly control for these factors?
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; May 26, 2009 at 06:54 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 06:56 PM
 
I wanted to hold off just a smidge, and see if I can get some opinions which aren't affected by the analysis of the people who did the study.

If I understand the data properly, the same group of respondents has been polled since they were 5. They didn't start asking sexuality questions until they were 16 (I think, I've actually lost track of the link for the moment ). If I understand what you mean by sampling bias, I don't think that's as big an issue as it might seem with this set of data.

If you're dying for it, I'll find it and PM you.


Edit: The study commenced when they were born (1977), and sexuality questions were asked at 21 and 26 years old.
( Last edited by subego; May 26, 2009 at 07:20 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:09 PM
 
Some observations based on this data.

Persistent major same sex attraction is less than 2% for both males and females (about 1.6% and 1.9% respectively).

Persistent and minor combined is about 11% for males, and 25% for females.

With the exception of suicidal ideation, substance abuse, and seeking medical or psychological health, women who are in the persistent and minor categories are much less "bothered" (my term) than men in the persistent and minor categories.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:11 PM
 
It's easier for me if you just look up the answers to my questions, so if you're game then I am too

What were the demographics of the various groups, and how were they chosen? Who signed these kids up, their parents?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:25 PM
 
From a different article:

"The data described in this report were gathered during the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study, a longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand–born children who have been studied from birth to age 21 years. The cohort was based on an unselected sample of births (635 men; 630 women) occurring in the Christchurch urban region during mid-1977. The cohort has now been studied at birth, 4 months of age, 1 year of age, annual intervals to the age of 16 years, and again at ages 18 and 21 years. The present analysis is based on a sample of 1007 subjects for whom data on sexual orientation were available. This sample represented 80% of the original cohort of 1265 subjects. Comparison of the sample of 1007 subjects with the original cohort of 1265 subjects showed that the obtained sample did not differ from the original cohort in terms of sex, ethnic status, or family size. However, there were small but statistically significant tendencies for the obtained sample to underrepresent children of young mothers (P = .046), children born into single parent families (P<.001), and children from families of low socioeconomic status (P<.001). It is unlikely that these small departures from random sample loss assumptions will materially influence the validity of the present analysis since the factors related to sample loss were uncorrelated with sexual orientation (see the "Social, Family, and Childhood Factors" subsection of the "Subjects and Methods" section)"

The suicide article has even less information, though it was carried out 5 years later, so is dealing with the subjects when they were 26.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:36 PM
 
Well we can't tell much without knowing the demographic breakdown of the various groups given. For example, if the gays all turn out to be white and the non-gays significantly non-white, the effect demonstrated could be entirely due to race, not sexual orientation.

Also, it seems that New Zealand doesn't have gay marriage, only civil unions. Obviously the "more tolerance" angle is incomplete.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Also, it seems that New Zealand doesn't have gay marriage, only civil unions. Obviously the "more tolerance" angle is incomplete.

I likewise get the impression (not from the study, more from Jane Campion movies ) that New Zealanders have a macho streak based in living out in the middle of nowhere. I could be completely wrong.

Skimming for the other info.

Edit: I should mention it is the opinion of the authors of the paper that New Zealand is more tolerant of homosexuals than the United States.
( Last edited by subego; May 26, 2009 at 08:58 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 07:56 PM
 
Is this what you're looking for?

"Demographic Variables
The following demographic variables in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study at age 26 years were compared in the three sexual-orientation groups (men and women separately): ethnic group (Maori versus other), educational attainment, employment, socioeconomic status, whether living with a spouse or partner, whether parent of one or more biological children, and residence in New Zealand for 6 or more months during the previous year.

Statistical Analysis
Chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare differences between sexual-orientation groups for self-harm variables, and Mantel-Haenszel tests for trend were reported when an association could be described as a trend.

After we combined the two groups with any same-sex attraction into one group, logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between the two sexual-orientation groups and self-harm variables, using the group reporting only opposite-sex attraction as the reference group. Another model considered potential demographic confounders and yet another, the effect of adjusting for depressed mood and substance misuse. Logistic regression was also used to examine the interaction between gender and sexual orientation. The interaction was regarded as significant if the change in deviance was greater than the critical value of the chi-square distribution with appropriate degrees of freedom. A large number of statistical tests were carried out, so the results should be interpreted cautiously.

Population-attributable risks for any same-sex attraction, assuming a causal relationship with deliberate self-harm and attempted suicide, were calculated for men and women separately (20)."
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 08:26 PM
 
astonishing that there are still people who are so afraid of gays that they try to link it with pedophiles.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 09:04 PM
 
For the record, ebuddy was arguing the applicability of a slippery slope from one to the other, not that they are "linked."
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I should mention it is the opinion of the authors of the paper that New Zealand is more tolerant of homosexuals than the United States.
"more tolerant" is not the same as "tolerant." To wit, if NZ is twice as tolerant as the US, how do we know that the suicide risk from being gay isn't twice as much in the US as it is in NZ? We don't, because the study was only performed in one of the two places. I guess if there was a second study, in a different place in which the tolerance towards gays could be quantifiably compared with NZ, we could estimate a linear relationship (on the assumption of course that the relationship is anywhere near linear). Of course I should mention (again; don't know if you saw my edit) that being white and male are similar risk factors for suicide (at least in the US), and I don't think it's logical to draw from that the conclusion that being either white or male in the US is an aversive characteristic to have.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this what you're looking for?

"Demographic Variables
The following demographic variables in the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study at age 26 years were compared in the three sexual-orientation groups (men and women separately): ethnic group (Maori versus other), educational attainment, employment, socioeconomic status, whether living with a spouse or partner, whether parent of one or more biological children, and residence in New Zealand for 6 or more months during the previous year.
I don't know. It sounds like they did the comparison, but I can't tell if they gave the actual results of that comparison. I have a hard time believing that all those various characteristics were evenly represented among only 8 gays in the study, but if they weighted the results I would be very surprised if that weighting hadn't been mentioned already. Does it say?

I'm still curious how they found the test subjects in the first place. I consider myself rather enthusiastic to contribute to advancing science and volunteering for studies, but I don't think I'd ever sign up to a study this involved. That makes me think that the people who would sign up are out of the ordinary in certain ways.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 26, 2009, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
To wit...

I'm not sure I follow. We have US studies, and their results are somewhat similar.

Yes, we have to empirically determine how much more tolerant NZ is than the US, but whatever that amount is, it doesn't seem to be affecting this particular issue.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know. It sounds like they did the comparison, but I can't tell if they gave the actual results of that comparison. I have a hard time believing that all those various characteristics were evenly represented among only 8 gays in the study, but if they weighted the results I would be very surprised if that weighting hadn't been mentioned already. Does it say?

As far as I can tell, they're not weighting it. They do consistently lament the small sample size, and have to combine minor same-sex attraction with persistent same-sex attraction to calculate odds.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That makes me think that the people who would sign up are out of the ordinary in certain ways.

A very good point. Since this is based on information that has been gathered for so long, I'm guessing that's considered old news by these authors.
( Last edited by subego; May 26, 2009 at 11:37 PM. )
     
torsoboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2009, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
astonishing that there are still people who are so afraid of gays that they try to link it with pedophiles.
It has nothing to do (for me at least) with being "afraid of gays". The two things, being gay, and being sexually attracted to children, are both unnatural attractions, despite being present in nature. That is the link between the two.

It is more likely that some (gay?) people are so afraid that being gay and being a pedophile ARE linked, that they try to distance the two items as much as possible.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2009, 02:54 AM
 
I've managed to escape the worst effects of being gay because I look/act straight. But a lot of gay people, for reasons out of their control, are more effeminate looking/acting and have targets painted on them. I can't imagine how much they get shitted on or ostracized, and it does not surprise me in the least that the suicide rate is high.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2009, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
I've managed to escape the worst effects of being gay because I look/act straight. But a lot of gay people, for reasons out of their control, are more effeminate looking/acting and have targets painted on them. I can't imagine how much they get shitted on or ostracized, and it does not surprise me in the least that the suicide rate is high.
People who look or act different then the majority always seem to have to deal with this crap - it's not limited to gay people, and regardless of who we are talking about you would hope that people could learn to be less hateful.

That being said, wouldn't a relatively small number of humans acting in ways that would suggest gender confusion, be rationally thought of having as some kind of illness or disorder? Strip away the political correctness, and actually look at it in scientific terms and I don't see how it can be viewed any other way.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2009, 07:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
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.
Or Bob and his dog Fluffy. Or Bob and his sister. Or Bob and a second Mrs. Bob. No one else is really effected using the same criteria you use.

Abortion laws are based on the concept of precluding the taking of what some people consider a human life, based on religious belief.
Not taking a human life is a "religious belief"? I'm pretty sure there's a sizable chunk of the non-religious who also see this as a beneficial standard for reasons having nothing to do with a deity, regardless of where this human life happens to be located.

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.
What I personally would like and what I believe should be legal are two different things in regard to abortion. I just want a truly Constitutional solution, supported by the majority, and not one made up from whole cloth by a liberal court, driven by lies.

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."
My point was that courts can illegally invent new laws and it's possible for them to do the same dishonest thing with "gay marriage" despite the fact that the Constitution does not allow for them to legislate. I pointed out the flaws in the way our current abortion laws where created by the courts as an example.

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.
I never said it would. Apparently, you never read my arguments in this regard.

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.
While I didn't say a "cesspool" would ensue, I did explain the negative repercussions that would ensue. With each legal stab at marriage's heart, we've seen these sorts of negative repercussions. From a increase to unwed births, a rise in divorce and a epidemic of single parents trying to do what two people have a hard enough time accomplishing.

Gay marriage is legal in five states, one of which it has been legal in for five years.
..and more states are going in the opposite direction, even going as far as changing their Constitutions in order to ensure that "gay marriage" isn't dishonestly mandated by their local judicial system. I really don't have a problem with the citizens of individual states deciding for themselves though. People who share liberal values should be able to govern how they want as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. That's the way our founding fathers intended. I might disagree on what it is they want to do, and express it, but I don't disagree that states can decide for themselves what happens in their states.

We can end up seeing how that goes in the long run. California for instance has been run by Democrats in a way that gave little concern with spending limits. The result has been people moving out of California and it's debt going nuclear. You reap what you sow.

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.
What happens to society matters to me, as I'm a part of it. I've explained how what we encourage and discourage as a society has long-term ramifications on EVERYTHING and how when we are dealing with children it has impact on everyone. Since you apparently are only focused on the feelings of a minority, I can understand why you'd gloss past that.

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.
What have I "made up"? In order to make that claim, you'd have to show that:

Having a mother and father raise their child is not something that is valued by the majority of society.
That having the government give special status to something isn't an incentive to be a part of that thing.
That the two types of unions we are discussing do not have unequal societal interest in what they typically produce.

All we get in return is blather about how none of that matters, because of the feelings and emotions and desires of others. Not a very good intellectual rebuttal.
( Last edited by stupendousman; May 27, 2009 at 07:50 AM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2009, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Or Bob and his dog Fluffy. Or Bob and his sister. Or Bob and a second Mrs. Bob. No one else is really effected using the same criteria you use.
Nice attempt at the fallacious slippery slope arugment.



Not taking a human life is a "religious belief"? I'm pretty sure there's a sizable chunk of the non-religious who also see this as a beneficial standard for reasons having nothing to do with a deity, regardless of where this human life happens to be located.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of the country's population considers themselves religious, and their core values are based on their religious beliefs. Another nice try, but it doesn't hold water.



What I personally would like and what I believe should be legal are two different things in regard to abortion. I just want a truly Constitutional solution, supported by the majority, and not one made up from whole cloth by a liberal court, driven by lies.
The problem, of course, is that what you would like and what you believe are what you would like in regard to abortion. That's human nature, and you're trying to tell us otherwise. If you believed otherwise, you'd then say that the majority was wrong. Keep trying.



My point was that courts can illegally invent new laws and it's possible for them to do the same dishonest thing with "gay marriage" despite the fact that the Constitution does not allow for them to legislate. I pointed out the flaws in the way our current abortion laws where created by the courts as an example.
It's all right when courts invent new laws with which you happen to agree, isn't it?



I never said it would. Apparently, you never read my arguments in this regard.



While I didn't say a "cesspool" would ensue, I did explain the negative repercussions that would ensue. With each legal stab at marriage's heart, we've seen these sorts of negative repercussions. From a increase to unwed births, a rise in divorce and a epidemic of single parents trying to do what two people have a hard enough time accomplishing.
None of those problems have anything to do with gay marriage, but it's convenient for you and others to gloss over that fact. The biggest threat to marriage comes from anyplace but the gay community's desire to have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, but you no doubt will continue flailing wildly, ignoring that fact. After all, if you say it enough times, it must be true.



..and more states are going in the opposite direction, even going as far as changing their Constitutions in order to ensure that "gay marriage" isn't dishonestly mandated by their local judicial system. I really don't have a problem with the citizens of individual states deciding for themselves though. People who share liberal values should be able to govern how they want as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution. That's the way our founding fathers intended. I might disagree on what it is they want to do, and express it, but I don't disagree that states can decide for themselves what happens in their states.
As time passes, more municipalities will realize that there is no threat from gays getting married, and having the same rights, and the state constitutions will be rewritten to reflect reality. The younger generations of today already realize that; it's primarily older people, who, like you, tend to be set in their ways, and who keep up a raucous "conversation," hoping to forestall the inevitable.

We can end up seeing how that goes in the long run. California for instance has been run by Democrats in a way that gave little concern with spending limits. The result has been people moving out of California and it's debt going nuclear. You reap what you sow.
Your conjecture is duly noted.



What happens to society matters to me, as I'm a part of it. I've explained how what we encourage and discourage as a society has long-term ramifications on EVERYTHING and how when we are dealing with children it has impact on everyone. Since you apparently are only focused on the feelings of a minority, I can understand why you'd gloss past that.
If you're as concerned about society as you claim to be, you should be working toward solving the real reasons why marriage is losing its popularity, like people cohabiting longer before they marry, and people having more children out of wedlock, and people no longer seeing marriage as a necessity for raising a happy and strong family, and people no longer seeing religion as a necessity, and a myriad of other issues. Blaming it on the gays is convenient, isn't it, but the underlying issues emanate from elsewhere, no matter how much you'd attempt to have us believe you know the answers.



What have I "made up"? In order to make that claim, you'd have to show that:

Having a mother and father raise their child is not something that is valued by the majority of society.
That having the government give special status to something isn't an incentive to be a part of that thing.
That the two types of unions we are discussing do not have unequal societal interest in what they typically produce.
Children can be raised as happily and effectively by a same sex couple, despite what you'd like to believe. Despite your blathering, the likelihood of children being raised by a same sex couple, in any event, is miniscule to begin with, as the gay community is extremely small.

Gays aren't looking for something "special" (one of the most tiresome, and false, arguments presented by the desperate); they're looking for the same rights, and they should have them (and will get them in time).



All we get in return is blather about how none of that matters, because of the feelings and emotions and desires of others. Not a very good intellectual rebuttal.
The irony in your statement is noted. Fortunately, for the umpteenth time, your arguments will eventually hold no water, and the world will go on, and if marriage in its current "traditional" form changes (and it's purpose has changed throughout history, but you'll conveniently ignore that as well), you'll no doubt go to your grave screaming how it was all the gays' fault, being blind to reality to the end.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 27, 2009, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
More and more, ebuddy is making it clear that he views homosexuality as a mental illness, thus making it clear that he's been reading from early 20th century pop psychology books, and thus isn't going to change his mind. Apparently he's got it all figured out.
Umm OMM, no need to read anything into ebuddy's posts. He has already come out and stated explicitly "that he views homosexuality as a mental illness".
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,