[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

*Before anyone starts in with the arguments about whether or not "equal protection before the law" should apply to pedophiles or animal-lovers, tell me whether or not you think young children and/or animals, especially animals, can provide consent to adult-child or human-animal relations. If you think young children or animals have the mental capacity to consent to sexual relationships with adults you've got bigger problems than your concern for pedophiles and beastialists.

THIS. My brother is violently and hatefully anti-homosexual, arguing that it's no different than polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastiality, and other things that are generally accepted as reprehensible.

There is a huge difference between two consenting adults having sex and an adult having sex with something that is no consenting (e.g. a child or an animal). Polygamy and incest would be logistical nightmares for life insurance companies and the IRS.

Of course, I would prefer that long-term all references to marriage be removed from our laws and all aspects of marriage be determined exclusively by the rightful guardian of such practices, religious organisations.

Also correct. The government has no business defining "marriage" - that should be solely in the hands of religious institutions.

I figure that eventually a large number of states will allow gay marriages resulting in religious institutions finally realising it is to their advantage to promote marriage as the religious-only institution it always has been by asking government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether and issue only civil licenses. This way the term marriage could retain its sacred connotations and those who oppose gay marriage can be assured that only a small number of actual gay marriages will be performed by religious institutions while civil unions will be performed for all couples, gay and straight, by secular institutions.

Absolutely. The government only recognizes marriage for census and tax purposes. It truly is just a civil union to the government.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Marriage doesn't need to be stricken from the law, it just needs to be separated from religion. You know, how it's supposed to be. As a legal definition of a union between two people, it's fine. People should be allowed to marry. If a religious institution doesn't want to marry them, then don't.

I would say that the best way to do this would be to redefine the government's position as "civil union" rather than marriage - marriage should be reserved for religious beliefs, whereas civil unions should be recognized by the government for their purposes (taxes, etc).

I don't know my stance on homosexual couples adopting children or having children. My coworker and her partner are looking into artificial insemination so that they can have a baby together. Honestly, I'm not sure that I have that much of a problem with it. There are plenty of kids who are raised in single parent homes, multi parent environments, by aunts and uncles and legal guardians...I'm not sure that it's inherently going to destroy a child's chance at normalcy to be raised by two people of the same gender.

My only real problem is that most homosexuals are also liberal Democrats, and no kid should be raised in that kind of home.

Really, though, I'm tired of conservative Christians getting their panties in a wad over this. There are way more important things to focus on (inside and outside the church) than the legitimacy of homosexuality. In fact, by focusing on it so much, you're only alienating gays that much more - and isn't that the opposite of the Great Commission?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i find it amusing that people are so passionate about keeping 2 people who are in love from getting married...

Who's doing this?

Everyone in this thread who is "against" gay marriage, is against it as a legal entity, and AFAICT, these same people are "against" straight marriages as a legal entity too.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

arguing that it's no different than polygamy, incest, pedophilia, beastiality

One of these things is not like the other...

[Chongo]

Anne Heche

[Chongo]

Utah will reinstate polygamy before it recognize same sex unions. I saw an interview, on CNN I believe, with a lawyer for one of the polygamist groups. He stated if the SCOTUS were to rule same sex marriage constitutional, they have the documents ready to file to make polygamy constitutional.

[Dakar V]

Vermont joins in the fun.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

they have the documents ready to file to make polygamy constitutional.

I don't see why they shouldn't.

As with all marriages, I'd prefer it was a civil union in legal terms, but otherwise, they can knock themselves out with it.

It's not like I'm a big fan of bestiality either, but it's okay for me to slice an animal's throat, eat it, and turn its skin into a coat, yet the pickle is off-limits?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Vermont joins in the fun.

Interesting.... the last I'd read they weren't going to be able to get enough votes to override the veto.

Edit: This has got to be embarrassing for California.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't see why they shouldn't.

As with all marriages, I'd prefer it was a civil union in legal terms, but otherwise, they can knock themselves out with it.

Polygamy is very different than same-sex marriage. It introduces a whole new set of circumstances the current law can't deal with. I'm not sure I have a personal opinion either way with regard to polygamy, but I hate when it is brought into the same-sex union/marriage debate. It's a very different entity.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I'm not sure I have a personal opinion either way with regard to polygamy, but I hate when it is brought into the same-sex union/marriage debate. It's a very different entity.

That sounds like a personal opinion.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

That sounds like a personal opinion.

Ugh... okay, how about a concrete example. What happens when you have a polygamous arrangement with 2 husbands and one wife? Who's the father the unions children? Both of them? The biological father? Present law indicates that the husband is the father. Birth certificates don't have room for more than one husband/father to be listed. What happens when there is a divorce? Is the entire union dissolved or can a single person exit the union without breaking up the whole thing? These are issues that just don't exist in two-person unions. This is not an opinion...it is fact.

[subego]

I understood what you meant by the differing legal issues, hence me not quoting that part of your post.

Feel free to continue insisting you have no opinion.


Edit: I should have phrased this more pleasantly, and would have just erased it if I didn't think it had already been up too long.

I apologize, and deserve whatever snarky response you wish to lay out.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Edit: This has got to be embarrassing for California.

Yes, yes it is.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

These are issues that just don't exist in two-person unions. This is not an opinion...it is fact.

Why would any of the reasons you've listed constitute legitimate grounds to deny them the right to be married?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, yes it is.

They voted their view on the issue and I'm guessing embarrassment didn't enter the equation. At least not to the extent that the lifted ban was upheld by the popular vote. Right? I don't see how they're embarrassed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I can't believe this debate still rages in 2009.

I'll check back in 2019 and hopefully by then any two, unrelated, adults, of legal age will have the same legal rights in all 50 states.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why would any of the reasons you've listed constitute legitimate grounds to deny them the right to be married?

I'm not making myself very clear I guess. I really don't give a rat's ass whether or not plural marriage is legalized. (However I do have concerns that plural marriage historically has favored men over women). My point is that adding it to the same-sex marriage / civil union debate unnecessarily complicates things. Modifying currently law to accommodate same-sex marriage can be as simple as replacing one or two words. Plural marriage adds a host of complications that will require much thought and effort in wording into law. Thus, I'm stating that when discussing and promoting same-sex marriage, plural marriage should be left out of the argument.

I'm also in agreement with those that feel we should just call all partnerships civil unions and leave the word marriage for the churches. The problem with that approach is it would require rewording every law in existence relevant to marriage. By simply expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, suddenly marriage law is applicable to everyone. I think that's one reason why people are supporting the marriage definition over the civil union definition. It's simpler.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

My point is that adding it to the same-sex marriage / civil union debate unnecessarily complicates things.

I guess where I'm coming from is that anyone who unnecessarily complicates the issue in this manner isn't going to be swayed by legalistic arguments.

Someone who injects polygamy into the discussion is morally throwing-down.

[OldManMac]

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/besen-...the-barn-wall/

Even this guy realizes there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about Bill and Ken living next door. WOOT!

“The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost,” wrote Cal Thomas, a founder of the modern Religious Right. He went on to say that those who think they can count on the political system to win are “closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.”

Recognizing the direction the nation is rapidly going, Thomas – who is still anti-gay - questioned the priorities of his Bible-beating brethren:

“To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve ‘traditional marriage’ in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions,” wrote Thomas, “I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?” {my emphasis}

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one is trying to "debunk the genetic argument" as much as put statements like "I'd say for probably 98% it's genetic" and "for the large majority of homosexuals it is pure genetics" into a more appropriate perspective. You're welcome to avail us non-geneticists of any relevant material you think affirms the above two statements. You're challenging those trying to put the debate into proper perspective while giving a complete pass to those non-geneticists and similarly unknowledgeable laypersons giving the genetic argument. Why, cuz you don't like those pesky facts?

BTW, "teh intarweb" is like... soooo 2002.

I was just curious.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/besen-...the-barn-wall/

Even this guy realizes there are bigger fish to fry than worrying about Bill and Ken living next door. WOOT!

“The battle over same-sex marriage is on the way to being lost,” wrote Cal Thomas, a founder of the modern Religious Right. He went on to say that those who think they can count on the political system to win are “closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.”

Recognizing the direction the nation is rapidly going, Thomas – who is still anti-gay - questioned the priorities of his Bible-beating brethren:

“To those on the political and religious right who are intent on continuing the battle to preserve ‘traditional marriage’ in a nation that is rapidly discarding its traditions,” wrote Thomas, “I would ask this question: What poses a greater threat to our remaining moral underpinnings? Is it two homosexuals living together, or is it the number of heterosexuals who are divorcing and the increasing number of children born to unmarried women, now at nearly 40 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?” {my emphasis}

Wow, so there actually is some semblance of intelligent life in the vocal Right.

[OldManMac]

Yes, but obviously very little.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/besen-...the-barn-wall/

He's saying what I've been saying all along. Missing in his point was the fact that the divorce rate is no better among Christians than non-Christians yet they still insist on point at homosexuals. I readily admit my Christian brethren have missed this boat by a mile.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I think that's one reason why people are supporting the marriage definition over the civil union definition. It's simpler.

Absolutely.

It's ultimately a question of priorities. Vermont could get it passed as such, so it's hard to argue that somehow isn't what Vermont should have done. I like states' rights.

On the other hand, I'd rather avoid the state by state legislative and judicial dogpile by removing sexuality from the equation.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

I like states' rights.

On the other hand, I'd rather avoid the state by state legislative and judicial dogpile by removing sexuality from the equation.

Agreed. I have mixed feelings on this as well. I hate the idea of the Feds over-exerting their will on the states but in this regard I wish Congress could just step in and be done with it.

Now that DC has decided to recognize same-sex unions from other states, Congress will have to get involved. Hopefully this will further advance the debate.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Agreed. I have mixed feelings on this as well. I hate the idea of the Feds over-exerting their will on the states but in this regard I wish Congress could just step in and be done with it.

Now that DC has decided to recognize same-sex unions from other states, Congress will have to get involved. Hopefully this will further advance the debate.

That sounds like a total train wreck to me.

The Democrats will spaz out, accomplish next to nothing, and get mowed down for overstepping the mandate they only think they have in the first place.

But I'm cynical like that.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

That sounds like a total train wreck to me.

The Democrats will spaz out, accomplish next to nothing, and get mowed down for overstepping the mandate they only think they have in the first place.

But I'm cynical like that.

Nah... that's realism... not cynicism.


Unfortunately for me, even if all 50 states legalize same-sex unions it won't do me any good. I need federal law amended so I can sponsor my partner. Even still, I can't help but feeling the tide is turning...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I need federal law amended so I can sponsor my partner. Even still, I can't help but feeling the tide is turning...

I'm in full support of this, but in a similar vein, an even halfway rational immigration policy would side-step the issue for the most part.

I like immigrants too.

[OldManMac]

Another one is wavering.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009.../?xid=rss-page

[subego]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Another one is wavering.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009.../?xid=rss-page

Warren clearly likes a cheeseburger (and another, make that a double please), but he's not so fat I'd compare him to an entire state.

Even Rhode Island.

[OldManMac]

The Bigots' last hurrah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/opinion/19Rich.html

[stupendousman]

No, polygamy is NO different. Arguing that it is because it would be a "logistical nightmare" or that the laws CURRENTLY can't deal with it is a cop out. It much the same argument as they were giving back during the "Jim Crow" era.

If it's a right for people who want to come together in a long term union to have their unions acknowledged as "marriage", you can't logically exclude polygamy just because it would be harder to implement. It was hard to implement the racial civil rights movement, but somehow we managed. It's no different than figuring out "family law" in regards to adoptions in gay unions. Traditionally the mother has preferential rights. What happens with two guys? Oh yeah, they sort of just figure these things out and make them work.

If the status of men/women creating new life isn't enough to create affirmative action protections alone, and traditional moral concerns are off the table, logically you can't stop people who want to marry more than one person if it isn't in the state's interest to mandate limits that would provide an "affirmative actions" for a preferred standard desired by most of society.

That's why the idea that changing the definition of marriage won't change it substantially, is a laughably illogical proposition. But then again, this is coming from people who believe that all that's different is a few words in the laws themselves. This is why people hate it when polygamy is brought into the discussion. It brings up a valid reason why people who might otherwise be tricked into believing this is an issue about "equal rights", can see that there are reasons why the laws are currently the way that they are, and they are in the best interest of the majority of society. People want polygamy even less than they want "gay marriage" and most want neither.

He's saying what I've been saying all along. Missing in his point was the fact that the divorce rate is no better among Christians than non-Christians yet they still insist on point at homosexuals. I readily admit my Christian brethren have missed this boat by a mile

True that. I don't think he's saying though that we should throw out a reasonable standard just because one group isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing either. I'm pretty sure Thomas knows that removing the standard isn't going to "strengthen marriage" in the way he wants. If it's reduced down to simply a legal contract that any two or more people or things can get in order to be able to peaceably divide up mutual property once the contract is deemed no longer mutually beneficial, you aren't going to be doing anything to encourage man/woman/chlld biological families to stay together when you no longer give them special status. If they have the same status as people getting together to get cheaper insurance or so they can file their taxes jointey, you pretty much remove a huge, special affirmative action to get them to take their relationships more seriously. It most certainly is the "dumbing down" of marriage, which didn't need any further help getting there.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No, polygamy is NO different. Arguing that it is because it would be a "logistical nightmare" or that the laws CURRENTLY can't deal with it is a cop out. It much the same argument as they were giving back during the "Jim Crow" era.

If it's a right for people who want to come together in a long term union to have their unions acknowledged as "marriage", you can't logically exclude polygamy just because it would be harder to implement. It was hard to implement the racial civil rights movement, but somehow we managed. It's no different than figuring out "family law" in regards to adoptions in gay unions. Traditionally the mother has preferential rights. What happens with two guys? Oh yeah, they sort of just figure these things out and make them work.

If the status of men/women creating new life isn't enough to create affirmative action protections alone, and traditional moral concerns are off the table, logically you can't stop people who want to marry more than one person if it isn't in the state's interest to mandate limits that would provide an "affirmative actions" for a preferred standard desired by most of society.

That's why the idea that changing the definition of marriage won't change it substantially, is a laughably illogical proposition. But then again, this is coming from people who believe that all that's different is a few words in the laws themselves. This is why people hate it when polygamy is brought into the discussion. It brings up a valid reason why people who might otherwise be tricked into believing this is an issue about "equal rights", can see that there are reasons why the laws are currently the way that they are, and they are in the best interest of the majority of society. People want polygamy even less than they want "gay marriage" and most want neither.



True that. I don't think he's saying though that we should throw out a reasonable standard just because one group isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing either. I'm pretty sure Thomas knows that removing the standard isn't going to "strengthen marriage" in the way he wants. If it's reduced down to simply a legal contract that any two or more people or things can get in order to be able to peaceably divide up mutual property once the contract is deemed no longer mutually beneficial, you aren't going to be doing anything to encourage man/woman/chlld biological families to stay together when you no longer give them special status. If they have the same status as people getting together to get cheaper insurance or so they can file their taxes jointey, you pretty much remove a huge, special affirmative action to get them to take their relationships more seriously. It most certainly is the "dumbing down" of marriage, which didn't need any further help getting there.

The government should not be in the business of "encouraging man/woman/child biological families to stay together".

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

People want polygamy even less than they want "gay marriage" and most want neither.

This doesn't somehow make it not an issue of equal rights, it just makes people who want one but not the other inconsistent and hypocritical.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The government should not be in the business of "encouraging man/woman/child biological families to stay together".

I disagree. If they don't, more times than not the government is forced to intervene in some way when that standard doesn't exist.

Would you estimate that more or less people in prisons right now are the products of homes that did not feature "man/woman/child biological families"?

Would you estimate that taxpayers money is spent more or less to support children not in a "man/woman/child biological family"?

Based on any kind or reasonable assessment, having "man/woman/child biological families" most certainly is in the interest of society and therefore a valid issue for the government. On the other hand, who we happen to have emotions for likely doesn't have the same, equal governmental interest.

Originally Posted by subego 

This doesn't somehow make it not an issue of equal rights, it just makes people who want one but not the other inconsistent and hypocritical.

I agree with them not being consistent or not hypocritical, but the base argument that this is about "equal rights" when the things we are talking about are not equal in the first place is a non-starter in my opinion to begin with.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I agree with them not being consistent or not hypocritical, but the base argument that this is about "equal rights" when the things we are talking about are not equal in the first place is a non-starter in my opinion to begin with.

Polygamy and gay marriage aren't equal either, yet you seem to appreciate the inconsistency in supporting one but not the other.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Polygamy and gay marriage aren't equal either, yet you seem to appreciate the inconsistency in supporting one but not the other.

My argument isn't that marriage, polygamy and/or gay unions are equal. I don't think that any of them are "equal" to each other. I've stated why I believe the man/woman long term union has added government/societal interest in promotion than they other two though.

If the basis of argument is simply that "marriage" should allow for anyone who loves each other to be able to join together in a long term union in a way that allows you to take advantage of certain government affirmative actions (which is the basis of the argument for "equal rights" for gay unions), then yes, they are all equal. If there is no measure of governmental/societal interest in promoting a desired standard, then you can only discriminate against one person's love over another's. You are going to have a hard time logically arguing that there's interest in government endorsement of homosexual love but not polygamous love just because you think it's icky and complex. If traditional morality can't be used as a standard, then you can't do it for polygamy either and so in this argument, they are equal.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Retards and cripples aren't objectively equal to the average person either, but the government is still obliged to afford them "equal" rights, up to and including favoritism like their own short school buses and reserved superior parking spots. You would be hard pressed to come up with a "government/societal interest" in granting such favoritism to the retards and cripples, who are guaranteed not to contribute their fair share to the GDP, beyond the simple goal of fostering a feeling (amongst everyone) of abstract principles like liberty, equality and brotherhood.

If it soothes your superiority complex, you can think of gay rights in the context that homosexuality is some sort of disability. Then everyone wins; you get to continue looking down on them and they get their equal rights. Unless of course you are also still opposed to things like wheelchair ramps and guide dogs. Are you?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Retards and cripples aren't objectively equal to the average person either, but the government is still obliged to afford them "equal" rights, up to and including favoritism like their own short school buses and reserved superior parking spots.

It's funny you mention "retards and cripples" (your words). One might also consider homosexuality a handicap - if you are wanting to equate it to other elements of the human condition that are seen as less desirable and causes the minority who are inflicted to not be able to enjoy all the "fruits of life" that the majority are able to take advantage of. so your words may be more apt than you intended.

When we decide that standards that make for the most desirable professional sportsmen and women, we don't reduced the standard so that these people who are "created equal" can also take part. Military service? Nope. Do we give these people racial affirmative action since they too could take advantage of such programs because they too have difficulty in life due to prejudice and the challenges they face because of their handicaps? Uh..no.

As we all can see, being created "equal" does not always end with equal results and outcomes.

You would be hard pressed to come up with a "government/societal interest" in granting such favoritism to the retards and cripples, who are guaranteed not to contribute their fair share to the GDP, beyond the simple goal of fostering a feeling (amongst everyone) of abstract principles like liberty, equality and brotherhood.

Actually, no. There is a societal interest in seeing to it that all members are able to contribute to the best of their abilities. We don't have to hire them for the NBA, but if they just need a little help to be able to contribute equally, then we should do what we can. There's no amount of "help" that we can give homosexuals to make the outcomes of their relations have the same societal interest as those of heterosexuals.

If it soothes your superiority complex, you can think of gay rights in the context that homosexuality is some sort of disability. Then everyone wins; you get to continue looking down on them and they get their equal rights. Unless of course you are also still opposed to things like wheelchair ramps and guide dogs. Are you?

Apples to oranges.

[OldManMac]

A Gaythering Storm. (They're coming, they're coming, in more than one way)

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6ed...ythering-storm

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

There's no amount of "help" that we can give homosexuals to make the outcomes of their relations have the same societal interest as those of heterosexuals.

Again I must say it is NOT government's role to evaluate and determine the "societal interest" of human relationships. It is the government's role to recognise and enforce contracts between individuals. Gay marriage is about extending legal rights to same-sex couples that already exist for opposite-sex couples. Legal rights are contractual rights and the state should only be concerned with equitable enforcement of those legal and contractual rights among all its citizens. The government should not be in the business of determining what is and is not a "societal interest". (If you want government to make laws based on what it deems as "societal interests" then don't complain when laws get made that conflict with your personal beliefs about "societal interests". You can't advocate for government concerning itself with "societal interests" in some aspects of law-making but not others. Well . . . unless you don't mind being labeled a hypocrite.)

And before you retort with your usual statement about default benefits for members of a group (i.e.: all opposite-sex couples should get the legal benefits of marriage even if they do not meet the gopvernment's "societal interest" criteria of having produced an offspring), remember that I have advocated for means testing for the benefit of marriage (if marriage is to be defined in terms of a "societal interest" and not a legal/contractual agreement). I have advocated for not allowing opposite-sex couples to marry until they have produced an offspring. I have advocated for eliminating any and all tax benefits to married couples (whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex). I have advocated for "means testing" affirmative action benefits (a person must show they are subject to racial discrimination before they could avail themselves of affirmative action benefits like race-based scholarships). I have advocated for treating government recognition of a marriage as simply the legal recognition of contractual obligations between individuals and nothing more.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's funny you mention "retards and cripples" (your words). One might also consider homosexuality a handicap - if you are wanting to equate it to other elements of the human condition that are seen as less desirable and causes the minority who are inflicted to not be able to enjoy all the "fruits of life" that the majority are able to take advantage of. so your words may be more apt than you intended.

Are you daft? That's exactly what I just said. Words just kind of spill out of you willy nilly, don't they?

When we decide that standards that make for the most desirable professional sportsmen and women, we don't reduced the standard so that these people who are "created equal" can also take part. Military service? Nope. Do we give these people racial affirmative action since they too could take advantage of such programs because they too have difficulty in life due to prejudice and the challenges they face because of their handicaps? Uh..no.

As we all can see, being created "equal" does not always end with equal results and outcomes.

Again, you're repeating exactly what I said: "equal rights" already doesn't mean equal. They don't join the military, they get special consideration in parking, instead of the Olympics they're in the Special Olympics, and dozens of other special-case special-treatment conditions. That doesn't mean it's not about fairness, or that it is about stupendousman's theory of societal advantage.

Actually, no. There is a societal interest in seeing to it that all members are able to contribute to the best of their abilities. We don't have to hire them for the NBA, but if they just need a little help to be able to contribute equally, then we should do what we can. There's no amount of "help" that we can give homosexuals to make the outcomes of their relations have the same societal interest as those of heterosexuals.

Truly laughable. We don't treat disabled people fairly so that we can harvest their meager productivity. There is no way that we "get" more out of them than we put in. We treat them fairly for fairness' sake alone. There is also no judgement of which disabilities are "worth it" for society's gain. The Stephen Hawkings are not treated better than the Terri Schiavos, even though Schiavo was obviously a money pit of epic proportions (BTW, what side of that controversy were you on? The answer will be telling, I have no doubt). So if your criterion for being fair is "to make the outcomes have the same societal interest as those of others," you're acting out one of your own favorite labels, intellectual dishonesty.

Apples to oranges.

... he said, after drawing the very same comparison in the first quote-block.
Stupendous.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Actually, no. There is a societal interest in seeing to it that all members are able to contribute to the best of their abilities. We don't have to hire them for the NBA, but if they just need a little help to be able to contribute equally, then we should do what we can. There's no amount of "help" that we can give homosexuals to make the outcomes of their relations have the same societal interest as those of heterosexuals.

How many retards and cripples do you know?

Sure, there are people with mild mental retardation who just need a break in life to contribute to society. However, there are also lots of retarded people who are so mentally deficient that they cannot function normally in society and will require 24/7 care for the rest of their lives. As Uncle Skeleton mentioned, we care for these people because it's the just thing to do, not because we will see some kind of tangible return from our efforts.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Again I must say it is NOT government's role to evaluate and determine the "societal interest" of human relationships.

Generally, you are right. There's one instance though when those "human relationships" end up having a huge impact on government and do have a "societal interest" in interceding - when men and women get together in long-term unions which normally result in the creation of offspring. If the government has no interest in any of this, then we really need to look into dismantling multiple government agencies, departments and institutions. Child protective services? Not needed - no societal interest. Department of Education - nope. Programs providing food for low income households with children? Nothing to do with the government so let's can them?

Either the government has an interest in what's best for children or it does not. If society believes that it's best for children to be raised in loving homes by their biological mother and father, and we know that government does have an interest in the best welfare of children, then logically they DO have an interest in trying to promote the man/woman/child long-term union.

As we can see, the government and society most certainly DO take a HUGE interest in the results of long-term unions between men and women in ways that they simply have no interest in when the terms of the unions simply involve emotion.

If the government has no interest in the outcomes involved with the long-term unions between men and women, and their only interest is in the contracts between them, we'd really save a lot of money abandoning scores of government initiatives revolving around the output created by these unions.

And before you retort with your usual statement about default benefits for members of a group (i.e.: all opposite-sex couples should get the legal benefits of marriage even if they do not meet the gopvernment's "societal interest" criteria of having produced an offspring), remember that I have advocated for means testing for the benefit of marriage (if marriage is to be defined in terms of a "societal interest" and not a legal/contractual agreement). I have advocated for not allowing opposite-sex couples to marry until they have produced an offspring. I have advocated for eliminating any and all tax benefits to married couples (whether they be same-sex or opposite-sex). I have advocated for "means testing" affirmative action benefits (a person must show they are subject to racial discrimination before they could avail themselves of affirmative action benefits like race-based scholarships). I have advocated for treating government recognition of a marriage as simply the legal recognition of contractual obligations between individuals and nothing more.

Unfortunately, that's never the way affirmative actions are normally implemented. You want the "baby with the bathwater" standard which goes above and beyond what's required in order to promote the beneficial standards involved. Unreasonable complications put into place via micromanagement that are unnecessary, cumbersome and DESIGNED to discriminate in ways that aren't productive to supporting the standards in question. It can be argued that allowing the "exceptions" to the rule to pass still goes toward fulfilling the wanted goals in regards to affirmative action in ways that allowing all contenders to pass does not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

How many retards and cripples do you know?

Sure, there are people with mild mental retardation who just need a break in life to contribute to society. However, there are also lots of retarded people who are so mentally deficient that they cannot function normally in society and will require 24/7 care for the rest of their lives. As Uncle Skeleton mentioned, we care for these people because it's the just thing to do, not because we will see some kind of tangible return from our efforts.

What are the alternatives? Is it acceptable to allow another human who is incapable of helping themselves live without care? Does the government have an interest in the most basic health/welfare issues involving those who can't help themselves? I think most would say yes.

Is it acceptable to allow two people who have emotions for each other not to get preferential treatment for their emotions when there is no compelling government/societal interest in doing so? I think most would say no. What people feel inside for others is a far cry from being mentally or physically challenged past the point of being able to care for themselves.

Apples to oranges.

[ebuddy]

To Uncle Skeleton: Do you believe homosexuality is wholly genetic, partially genetic with psycho-social/environmental component, or wholly psycho-social/environmental?

I ask because I believe this is the unspoken core of the debate. When I have more time and if the opportunity appears fruitful enough, I'll expand on the thought.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the government has no interest in the outcomes involved with the long-term unions between men and women, and their only interest is in the contracts between them, we'd really save a lot of money abandoning scores of government initiatives revolving around the output created by these unions.

Absolutely! Let's do away with the "scores of government initiatives revolving around [children]". I am all for it. (Seriously. I am.) Besides, the federal Department of Education is a pretty likely example of something that should have been "reserved for the states" to do (via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution).

You consistently argue for less/smaller government in the Poli-War Lounge so put your money where your mouth is and come out and advocate for elimination of the "scores of government initiatives revolving around [children]". (Unless, of course, you think the "scores of government initiatives revolving around [children]" are a good thing at which point you need to re-visit your very public stance in favor of less/smaller government and explain why you think less/smaller government is good in some circumstances but not in others. Or, again, you run the risk of being called a hypocrite.)

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What are the alternatives? Is it acceptable to allow another human who is incapable of helping themselves live without care? Does the government have an interest in the most basic health/welfare issues involving those who can't help themselves? I think most would say yes.

You are on a slippery slope here. If you think the government has "an interest in the most basic health/welfare issues involving those who can't help themselves" due to retardation why should the government not have "an interest in the most basic health/welfare issues involving those who can't help themselves" due to drug abuse (government-funded needle-exchange or drug-treatment programs), laziness (i.e.: welfare assistance for food/housing), emotional instability (i.e.: government-funded mental-health services)? There are a whole realm of people out there "who can't help themselves" for one reason or another, do you really think that we should have the government help them all? In a more general sense, do you really think that that criteria--"government helps those who can't help themselves"--is appropriate for deciding government policy?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Again, you're repeating exactly what I said: "equal rights" already doesn't mean equal. They don't join the military, they get special consideration in parking, instead of the Olympics they're in the Special Olympics, and dozens of other special-case special-treatment conditions. That doesn't mean it's not about fairness, or that it is about stupendousman's theory of societal advantage.

The Special Olympics isn't a government program. Consideration in parking is due to the fact that they have a handicap that makes it harder for them travel like everyone else. Are you saying your are interested in treating homosexuality as a handicap, and having the government start programs to help them overcome it to the best of their ability? I'm pretty sure that the government doesn't have any programs or policies which encourages people to stay handicapped or give them preferential treatment when they wish to essentially celebrate their handicaps. It's mostly all help to make them fit the "norm" as best as possible when they can.

Handicapped people for the most part do not want to be handicapped, would do whatever was necessary not to be handicapped, and do not get preferential treatment for endeavors which seek to benefit from their handicap. We do what we can to help them simply live the same as the "norm" within reason.

Truly laughable. We don't treat disabled people fairly so that we can harvest their meager productivity. There is no way that we "get" more out of them than we put in. We treat them fairly for fairness' sake alone.

Fairness based on what? The government "fairness" is based on the societal interest we have in allowing people to have the most very basic ability to engage in a "pursuit of happiness" - especially when they are incapable of doing so for themselves. Make sure people are able to feed themselves when they are mentally or physically incapable would seems to fall under that category and be "fair". On the other hand, hiring 2 people to carry them around everywhere they go when they could be using a wheelchair or crutches if they can't walk doesn't seem to be "fair" since there is no real societal interest in giving them benefits above and beyond what could be deemed necessary to meet that most basic level of "fairness".

We give men and women who marry preferential treatment because doing so creates an "affirmative action" that encourages them to stay together, since their long-term unions normally results in a man/woman/child biological union which society values - given that this arrangement usually results in less government burden in regards to tax dollars spent on child support services and money invested in things like prisons.

We help out the handicapped because they can't help themselves, and it allows them the most basic ability to have an opportunity to engage in a "pursuit of happiness" in ways which go above and beyond their ability and makes them more productive citizens.

Again, unless you are suggesting that homosexuality is a handicap, and therefore government should be doing what it can to help those afflicted by it to be able to overcome it and fit the "norm", I think you're reaching for straws.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Absolutely! Let's do away with the "scores of government initiatives revolving around [children]". I am all for it. (Seriously. I am.) Besides, the federal Department of Education is a pretty likely example of something that should have been "reserved for the states" to do (via the 10th Amendment to the Constitution).

You consistently argue for less/smaller government in the Poli-War Lounge so put your money where your mouth is and come out and advocate for elimination of the "scores of government initiatives revolving around [children]". (Unless, of course, you think the "scores of government initiatives revolving around [children]" are a good thing at which point you need to re-visit your very public stance in favor of less/smaller government and explain why you think less/smaller government is good in some circumstances but not in others. Or, again, you run the risk of being called a hypocrite.)

Actually, I don't necessarily argue for "less/smaller government." I have argued for less/smaller government in areas that don't really require government intervention.

I do agree with you sort of. I too would get rid of a lot of the federal initiatives revolving around child welfare issues. Most child welfare issues are already handled by the states, I believe and that's where they best can dealt with. I believe that in the case of the "helpless" society and government have a valid role in intervening where they do not with people who can help themselves and that this can be best ascertained on a local level.