Gay marriage ban: Some questions.

[dyermaker]

I wasn't talking about civil unions, I was talking about federal recognition. The gays don't need you to speak for them, an overwhelming majority of them just want their rights.

[UCFKevin]

I'd say it's a mix of both.

 

Regardless, it's all just so FRIGGIN' stupid. This will be the first amendment to the Constitution that takes away rights. F'in ridiculous. Prohibition did the same thing, but that was later changed. Here's hoping this will be, too.

 

This country is so going down the dumps. Might as well rename it "The United States of Christianity."

[BadMan]

Originally posted by moimeme

preserving marriage

 

What a joke! What utter hypocrisy! It is such bull covering an excuse for being anti-gay. If people HONESTLY cared about 'preserving marriage', long ago marriage preparation would have been legislated as a requirement for a marriage license, or else classes on life and relationships would be part of the school curriculum. There is nothing left TO preserve. But what a handy and oh-so-pious-sounding excuse to lay over what is really discrimination.

 

This kind of BS disgusts me utterly. Call a spade a spade. Just say 'we don't want no damn gays' and be done with it but do NOT pretend to be all over holy about the 'sanctity' of marriage.

 

 

How is a ban on gay marraige discrimination? Gay people can marry whoever they

want. They just can't marry the same sex.

[jenny]

what a very odd response.

 

er...let's walk through this slowly, even if you were joking. *why* can't they marry the same sex? if they may marry whomever they want, why limit that to only people of the opposite sex?

 

i really don't understand your witticism. would you have said the same thing about interracial marriages? as in: they can marry whomever they want, as long as the person has the same skin colour?

[BadMan]

Originally posted by Arabess

I've asked this question before: Why is it so important to 'gay couples' whether or NOT their union is legally accepted? Short of insurance purposes, I can't see why they need the government or anyone else to 'validate' their 'marriages'.

 

If I made an agreement of 'union' with someone, with a ceremony including my family and friends, I wouldn't care of the government put their stamp of approval on it or not. It would be between myself and my partner.

 

Maybe I'm missing the whole point here.....but I really don't get it!!!

 

I don't care if someone decides to form a union with their pet goat. It's none of MY business and has no place as a political issue. I personally don't want to pay his 'vet' bills though.

 

The whole issue is about gays getting the same bennefits as heteros.

Don't laugh about the goat- if gay marriages are made legal- that will be the next movement- as well as incest, pedophilia- who know what else. Makes me sick.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

what a very odd response.

 

er...let's walk through this slowly, even if you were joking. *why* can't they marry the same sex? if they may marry whomever they want, why limit that to only people of the opposite sex?

 

i really don't understand your witticism. would you have said the same thing about interracial marriages? as in: they can marry whomever they want, as long as the person has the same skin colour?

 

No because an interacial marriage can produce children.

[jenny]

this is a fallacious analogy. homosexual relations are legal and consensual; incest and pedophilia are non-consensual and illegal.

 

should i take away your right to get married because we all know that heterosexual marriages lead to rape and overpopulation? no, of course not, that's quite a ridiculous line of reasoning.

 

i respect your right to believe that these acts are wrong, and i would never interfere in your right to believe what you will. no one is trying to force you into a gay marriage yourself; we simply want the rights that you have extended to people with same sex orientations.

 

(i'm slashdot, by the way) i was honestly looking for a credible, calm, and logical argument so that i could understand the other side a little better. one of the more legitimate ones i've heard has to do with the due process of legislature, so i am open to listening to new ideas.

 

at the end of the day, i'm obviously going to be for people with same-sex orientation having the same rights and privileges as you and I enjoy, but i would like to understand any legitimate argument presented by the opposition fully and respectfully.

 

i also read the site that Errol posted, and if anything it would seem to fully support the rights to gay marriage. in any event, i am willing to listen but am just distracted by anger, nausea, and poor analogies.

[jenny]

by that logic, should a couple where one partner is infertile be allowed to marry?

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

by that logic, should a couple where one partner is infertile be allowed to marry?

 

Yes because it was not his or her choice to be infertile. Plus they can adopt and bring up a child in an otherwise normal household. While I'm at it I don't think gay s should be allowed to adopt either. JMHO.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

this is a fallacious analogy. homosexual relations are legal and consensual; incest and pedophilia are non-consensual and illegal.

 

should i take away your right to get married because we all know that heterosexual marriages lead to rape and overpopulation? no, of course not, that's quite a ridiculous line of reasoning.

 

i respect your right to believe that these acts are wrong, and i would never interfere in your right to believe what you will. no one is trying to force you into a gay marriage yourself; we simply want the rights that you have extended to people with same sex orientations.

 

(i'm slashdot, by the way) i was honestly looking for a credible, calm, and logical argument so that i could understand the other side a little better. one of the more legitimate ones i've heard has to do with the due process of legislature, so i am open to listening to new ideas.

 

at the end of the day, i'm obviously going to be for people with same-sex orientation having the same rights and privileges as you and I enjoy, but i would like to understand any legitimate argument presented by the opposition fully and respectfully.

 

i also read the site that Errol posted, and if anything it would seem to fully support the rights to gay marriage. in any event, i am willing to listen but am just distracted by anger, nausea, and poor analogies.

 

How is a brother and sister who want to have sex and get married non-consensual? Also there are pedophiles out there who want thier orientation to be

accepted by society. It's all so wrong but its a fact.

[jenny]

ok, what do you consider abnormal about a hypothetical household with two loving parents of the same sex?

 

and, do you believe that you are correct enough to actually forbid people to think and act differently? do you feel you should have the right to legislate how two consesual partners choose to live and whether or not they should raise children?

 

how far would you be willing to take this? do you feel that lesbian couples should be forcefully sterilized in case they can get their hands on some donor sperm? should we also eliminate gays' right to vote? if you do believe that you should have control over gays' choice to marry, what else about their lives do you feel you should have control over?

[jenny]

pedophilia is non- consensual and illegal. i was assuming you meant forced incest, but it seems like a red herring issue to me. you can throw in all the comparisons that you like, but it's just a way of avoiding this:

 

we are talking about homosexuality that is legal and consensual. the burden of proof is on you to justify not allowing them the same rights that you have.

 

i'll make you a deal. i'll look up what might go wrong with brother-sister DNA mixing, biologically, if you actually address the question above with no rhetoric, no wild couples or analogies, and no insults. assume we are both reasonable people using a similar language of logic and reason to debate.

[jester]

(i'm slashdot, by the way)

 

Darn, I should have figured out SlashDot was jenny from the list that inaugurated this Thread.

 

Welcome back, jenny.

 

We all missed you.

 

By the way, two doors down from our house live two lesbians who have adopted a boy and a girl both of whom otherwise would have languished in foster care . Both kids are happy and well adjusted --as are the parents.

 

The State of Kentucky is considering a constitutional amendment to bar Gay parents from adopting.

 

Why don't we round up all the Gays and put them in Christian Re-education camps?

 

The Culture Wars are heating up again.

 

And this time, I'm no pacifist.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

ok, what do you consider abnormal about a hypothetical household with two loving parents of the same sex?

 

Teaches children abnormal behavior. Homosexuality is by definition abnormal.

 

 

and, do you believe that you are correct enough to actually forbid people to think and act differently?

 

Again gays have the right to marry just like me- not the same sex however. They can think and do whatever they want in the privacy of thier own home.

 

 

do you feel you should have the right to legislate how two consesual partners choose to live and whether or not they should raise children?

 

Not me alone, but give the american people the chance to vote- don't let a bunch of liberal judges make that decision for me.

 

how far would you be willing to take this? do you feel that lesbian couples should be forcefully sterilized in case they can get their hands on some donor sperm?

 

No-they just shouldn't be allowed custody of any children

 

 

should we also eliminate gays' right to vote?

 

No- if theres enough of them to vote on this issue(and theres enough heteros to support them) and they win the right to marry and raise children I'll have to accept it.

 

 

if you do believe that you should have control over gays' choice to marry, what else about their lives do you feel you should have control over?

 

 

I don't want control- just the chance to vote with the rest of my fellow americans..

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

pedophilia is non- consensual and illegal. i was assuming you meant forced incest, but it seems like a red herring issue to me. you can throw in all the comparisons that you like, but it's just a way of avoiding this:

 

we are talking about homosexuality that is legal and consensual. the burden of proof is on you to justify not allowing them the same rights that you have.

 

How many times do I have to say it. Gays can marry-just not the same sex. ie they have the exact same right as I do. I don't know why you can't understand that. No insult intended.

 

i'll make you a deal. i'll look up what might go wrong with brother-sister DNA mixing, biologically, if you actually address the question above with no rhetoric, no wild couples or analogies, and no insults. assume we are both reasonable people using a similar language of logic and reason to debate.

[BadMan]

Someday I'll learn how to use the quote system correctly.

[moimeme]

ie they have the exact same right as I do

 

That is your interpretation of the right. Others interpret it to mean that people may marry whom they wish and that only relationships which are currently constrained by law may not be legally recognized. Your position is that unless it is specifically allowed by law, it is disallowed, however that is not how laws are meant to be interpreted.

[jenny]

hmmm. what dictionary are you using? mine says this:

 

"Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex."

 

it does not make a call concerning the normality of the concept. it goes on to note the etymology of the word, and had some excellent usage notes, but it did not say anything about what is a normal enough orientation to rear children.

 

now, this is just dictionary.com. maybe the OED makes a judgment call? i quite like the idea of the divine right of lexicographers to arbitrate such matters and am curious to learn more.

 

as for the voting - ok. i do see the legitimacy of that argument. statistics inform us that if we used this reasoning for womens' rights, civil rights, or interracial marriages, America would still a fairly restrictive nation, but i do think it is still a technically correct argument. can anyone respond to it? I just don't know enough about American law to do so.

[jenny]

o! i see! we have a semantics problem. you have the right to choose who you will marry; you have the right to marry someone with a similar orientation as your own. homosexuals do not have that right.

 

i have no idea why you would need to restrict a gay person's right to marry someone with a similar same-sex orientation. the burden of proof remains on you to explain why you would need to control which orientation is allowed access to the institution of marriage.

 

to say that gays are welcome to marry heterosexuals is just besides the point, and not much of an argument. i respect your overall argument a great deal, actually, excepting this part. this just seems like a hackneyed one-liner that you've decided to adopt as a philosophy.

 

let me ask differently: why do you care if two men marry each other? it's wrong for you but what difference does it make in your life if two men love one another and would like to be married to each other?

 

it's the attempt to ban that just befuddles me still. it's one thing to disapprove, i see why that happens that, but to actively seek to restrict is just strange.

[BadMan]

In terms of procreation it is definitly abnormal.

 

You will not be procreating if your gay. It's a biological dead end.

[jenny]

do you believe the purpose of marriage is procreation? and you believe that any marriage that does not intend procreation should be stopped?

 

i think we just agree to disagree here. i respect your belief system.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

do you believe the purpose of marriage is procreation? and you believe that any marriage that does not intend procreation should be stopped?

 

i think we just agree to disagree here. i respect your belief system.

 

Right on Jenny, I respect yours as well. Peace.

[moimeme]

See, here's where it only gets amusing. Basically, the reason people don't want gays marrying is that it gives them the willies. They can't possibly say that, because it is neither logical nor fair. So then they try, REAL hard, to construct a moral or legal or somehow otherwise seemingly plausible argument which will sound acceptable morally, legally, or logically to people willing to believe that the attitudes of the protestors are indeed based upon rational analysis and reasoned argument. Or rather, to people who feel the same and who also hope to find some sort of plausible rationale for it.

 

I'd be overjoyed if one of these folks would just admit that 'I don't like the idea, period, and that's why I'm against it' rather than them trying to sugarcoat what boils down to personal prejudice. I doubt it will ever happen. People know that prejudice is wrong and that's why they try to dress it up in pretty clothes.

 

It's ugly, though, and no amount of fake moralizing will hide the fact that this is about prejudice, plain and simple. But carry on pretending this is a real argument with genuine rationality behind it. I admit it can be an interesting intellectual exercise to poke holes in each successive argument which, inevitably, lacks logical rigour. Problem is that people intent on pretending their arguments hold water will never concede the errors in their logic so it becomes an exercise in futility.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by moimeme

See, here's where it only gets amusing. Basically, the reason people don't want gays marrying is that it gives them the willies. They can't possibly say that, because it is neither logical nor fair. So then they try, REAL hard, to construct a moral or legal or somehow otherwise seemingly plausible argument which will sound acceptable morally, legally, or logically to people willing to believe that the attitudes of the protestors are indeed based upon rational analysis and reasoned argument. Or rather, to people who feel the same and who also hope to find some sort of plausible rationale for it.

 

I'd be overjoyed if one of these folks would just admit that 'I don't like the idea, period, and that's why I'm against it' rather than them trying to sugarcoat what boils down to personal prejudice. I doubt it will ever happen. People know that prejudice is wrong and that's why they try to dress it up in pretty clothes.

 

It's ugly, though, and no amount of fake moralizing will hide the fact that this is about prejudice, plain and simple. But carry on pretending this is a real argument with genuine rationality behind it. I admit it can be an interesting intellectual exercise to poke holes in each successive argument which, inevitably, lacks logical rigour. Problem is that people intent on pretending their arguments hold water will never concede the errors in their logic so it becomes an exercise in futility.

 

Boy are you off the mark here. My sister is gay. I love her to death. Doesn't give me " the willies" at all.

Some of my wifes best friends are gay. Most generous caring people I know. It doesn't change my opinion of the topic at hand. Save your intellectual bs for someone else.

[wideawake]

Originally posted by BadMan

Boy are you off the mark here. My sister is gay. I love her to death. Doesn't give me " the willies" at all.

Some of my wifes best friends are gay. Most generous caring people I know. It doesn't change my opinion of the topic at hand. Save your intellectual bs for someone else.

 

So you're against both your sister and your best friends getting married and having children?

 

Seriously? That just doesn't add up for me. How can you love your friends, wish only happiness for them and in the same breath deny them that happiness?