Prop 8, tyranny of the majority?

[Bone]

Terrible idea, Bone. Ripe for exclusion of lower-educated citizens, which isn't always due to willful ignorance.Yes, it was meant in a sarcastic way. I don't really believe in standardized testing, but it seems to define our measure of success in education instead of a real understanding of curriculum.


If you want to start discussing changing voting rights by law, create a law that mandates easily understood explanations of the candidate's stances to be provided to every citizen by mail, free of charge, well in advance of the election. Of course, since the whole 'flip-flop' meme is so popular now, I can't see these explanations staying current or even being valid, but you can see the problem.Right, as you said this is just as ripe for abuse. Propaganda that pretends to be the "simple" explanation of something could just as easily be engineered to twist the facts.

[VerseD]

I liked the conversation on gay marriage between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee, who is definitely one of best spoken people in the Republican party, on the Daily Show last night. Check it out (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2).

[National Kato]

I liked the conversation on gay marriage between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee, who is definitely one of best spoken people in the Republican party, on the Daily Show last night. Check it out (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2).

Thanks for the link, VerseD. Yeah, Huckabee can speak clearly, but his reasoning is still off, evidenced by how easily Stewart dissects his historical and social foundation for his opinion.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Thanks for the link, VerseD. Yeah, Huckabee can speak clearly, but his reasoning is still off, evidenced by how easily Stewart dissects his historical and social foundation for his opinion.

Yeah, and Stewart isn't a genius or anything, either.

[National Kato]

Yeah, and Stewart isn't a genius or anything, either.

No, he's not. But I find his arguments on this topic to be pretty solid.

[TheFlyingOrc]

No, he's not. But I find his arguments on this topic to be pretty solid.

Not insulting him. Just pointing out that Huckabee shouldn't get as completely owned by someone like Stewart, who OFTEN makes huge logical fallacies in his thinking.

[Generation ABXY]

I liked the conversation on gay marriage between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee, who is definitely one of best spoken people in the Republican party, on the Daily Show last night. Check it out (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2).

That was rather interesting, thank you.

When he isn’t be an ass, I can actually stand to listen to Stewart, and I rather wish that conversation had gone on longer. While it may not have come off as a victory for him, I do think Huckabee made a good point: when so many American’s don’t feel that gay marriage is acceptable, the onus does rather fall on the homosexual community to convince them (and not through fear, but reasoned debate...which both sides need to improve).

Stewart may not have agreed with that, mind you, but when the opposition is basing their decisions off of their fundamental beliefs, you'd get a lot farther by discussing it than you would just hoping everyone comes around to your side.

[Ink Asylum]

Stewart isn't a genius but, unlike a lot of reporters and interviewers, he isn't afraid to call bullshit to the guest's face and push back. If your typical talking head was as skilled an interviewer as Stewart he wouldn't seem so remarkable.

[Ox]

Terrible idea, Bone. Ripe for exclusion of lower-educated citizens, which isn't always due to willful ignorance.
Who cares whether your ignorance is willful or not? I'm sympathetic to somebody who never had the money to go to med school, but I still won't let him remove my appendix.

If you want to start discussing changing voting rights by law, create a law that mandates easily understood explanations of the candidate's stances to be provided to every citizen by mail, free of charge, well in advance of the election.
Or perhaps we could have the candidates discuss their views, maybe in a debate format, on broadcast television... We could also have daily printed publications that covered the events of the day and the candidates' stances available at stands on the street corner, priced at under a dollar so all could afford them...

[National Kato]

Or perhaps we could have the candidates discuss their views, maybe in a debate format, on broadcast television...

Big fan of the televised debates we had, huh? That format works for you?

[Ink Asylum]

You want to know about voting. I'm here to tell you about voting. Imagine you're locked in a huge underground nightclub filled with sinners, whores, freaks and unnameable things that rape pit bulls for fun. And you ain't allowed out until you all vote on what you're going to do tonight. You like to put your feet up and watch "Republican Party Reservation". They like to have sex with normal people using knives, guns and brand-new sexual organs that you did not know existed. So you vote for television, and everyone else, as far as the eye can see, votes to fuck you with switchblades. That's voting. You're welcome.

- Warren Ellis, through the character of Spider Jerusalem.

[National Kato]

Who cares whether your ignorance is willful or not? I'm sympathetic to somebody who never had the money to go to med school, but I still won't let him remove my appendix.

Well, Ox, do you support voters rights based on standardized testing as Bone put forth as an example? That is, American citizens would only have the right to vote on topics on which they successfully pass a test?

[Ox]

No, not really. As Lord Acton said, "The problem is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." I've spent a lot of time with genuine world-renowned experts in their various fields, and I am continually amazed at how stupid smart people can be. To take one example: Woodrow Wilson was a brilliant and highly educated man... who also founded the modern KKK. Book learnin' is overrated.

I mean, heck, look at me: I'm possibly the most educated man on this forum, at least in terms of the prestige of his educational institutions, and I based my Presidential vote in part on skin color. If that's not a demonstration of the worthlessness of knowledge, what is?

That said, we do have standardized testing for voting rights already: if you want to become a naturalized citizen, you have to pass a test covering basic principles of civic knowledge. Only native-borns get to vote upon proof of no more than a pulse and a birthplace.

[VerseD]

A lot of people who vote do so without properly educating themselves. They do it on impulse, or based on ads or public image or a single, overriding issue like abortion.

Under American democracy, we have to put up with slow-moving progress, a lot of mistakes, occasional bad leaders, and occasional radical swings. But everyone still deserve the right to vote, because only by giving all adults the right to vote can we ensure that the greatest number of people are represented and have their rights protected.

Paraphrasing Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others.

So even though I think that passing Proposition 8 was a mistake, I still believe in democracy. It may take a generation longer for the hoi polloi to make the right decision than it would for a dictator, but they'll get around to it eventually. In the interim, its up to us to educate people and change their minds.

[TheFlyingOrc]

A lot of people who vote do so without properly educating themselves. They do it on impulse, or based on ads or public image or a single, overriding issue like abortion.

I personally cannot fault people on either side of the abortion debate for voting on that one issue. Depending on whether you think that a fetus is a child or not, the "other side" on that issue wants to do something horrific.

[Bingley Joe]

Saw this video today, and it's just absolutely has to be posted here:

VWlxwO36Ztc

[KingGorilla]

I liked the conversation on gay marriage between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee, who is definitely one of best spoken people in the Republican party, on the Daily Show last night. Check it out (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=mike-huckabee-pt.-2).

I would respect the man more if he just went out and said "my church tells me to hate gays." Ant least bigots like Bush and Palin admit as much.

I do love his contradiction that Stewart calls him out on. How Huckabee and Conservatives want to keep the 5000 year old definition of marriage, except for women being property, and polygamy. But other than that, keep the definition. Or that in the early Christian Church, and by early hundreds of years, homosexual marriages were conducted.

[mister slim]

Also we should bring back dowries. It's just not worth marrying some woman unless I'm getting paid for it. Also it would partially balance out my hooker expenses.

[ShivaX]

I think Huckabee sort of reinforces my point I made a while back about people objecting to the word "marriage." I don't think Mike would have a huge issue with giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples, his issues stem from the whole "sanctity of marriage" end of things. If we called them both civil unions I don't think he'd be opposed to it.

I was kind of disappointed Stewart didn't ask him a question in that vein, it would have been good to see his response to it. I realize that hes wrong on what he thinks marriage is (which Jon called him on very well), but hes a great example of the kind of person who probably wouldn't object to a civil unions for everyone approach.

[Lint of Death]

Man, Jon Stewart is brilliant. I watched that interview on Friday and I was amazed at how well he debated the issues with Huckabee.

Stewart isn't a genius but, unlike a lot of reporters and interviewers, he isn't afraid to call bullshit to the guest's face and push back. If your typical talking head was as skilled an interviewer as Stewart he wouldn't seem so remarkable.
Ignoring your tautology, I totally disagree. The Daily Show requires a ton of work and Stewart has done a an amazing job running it for years. The quality of his stuff during the writer's strike is proof enough of that.

As for the "typical talking heads" you describe, they get regularly lampooned for doing what you describe and act like total asses or otherwise completely fail at it, as frequently pointed out about Chris Matthews and so many people FOX News, to give a couple examples.

I was kind of disappointed Stewart didn't ask him a question in that vein, it would have been good to see his response to it. I realize that hes wrong on what he thinks marriage is (which Jon called him on very well), but hes a great example of the kind of person who probably wouldn't object to a civil unions for everyone approach.
I agree, I was hoping they would have enough time to get to that argument, since Huckabee's response and the ensuing dialogue would have been inevitably interesting.

[National Kato]

Support the Courage Campaign. (http://vimeo.com/3089746)

I wish I could embed Vimeo video, since this version (w/ Regina Spektor's approval) isn't up on YouTube yet.

[boratika]

Support the Courage Campaign. (http://vimeo.com/3089746)

I wish I could embed Vimeo video, since this version (w/ Regina Spektor's approval) isn't up on YouTube yet.

b-awVQkTeVE

[National Kato]

Ah, great boratika! Thanks. I'm glad they put that version up instead of the old one with the sad instrumental music.

I think it's a very effective video. Assigning faces and families to the issue helps illustrate who is really hurt by the intolerance and bigotry.

[ShivaX]

Score one for the Hawkeye State.

http://www.kcci.com/family/14017389/detail.html

Iowa becomes the second state after Massachusetts to allow same-sex marriages.

On Thursday afternoon, a Polk County district court judge declared the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

This is good news for a lot of people I know. Glad to see my state get something right. Hopefully our infamous Iowa apathy will keep a Prop 8 type of scenario from happening.

[BlackPete]

it's official: Iowa is more progressive than California.

[ShivaX]

it's official: Iowa is more progressive than California.

We'll see. I bet if it was taken to a popular vote like it was in California it could be defeated. Generally speaking though Iowans on the whole are fairly laid back so we might come out ahead on this one. Marching down to Des Moines is a pain in the ass anyway, though I'm sure someone will do it.

[BlackPete]

Take a look at the process as to what it takes to pass an amendment in Iowa... It's insanely complicated. Plus like you mentioned... The Iowan apathy may help as well. ;)

[MagGnome]

I was really excited to see this, although a little jealous at the same time. Iowa before Minnesota? Hopefully once we get Pawlenty out of the head office we will be able to have same-sex marriages here as well.

[ShivaX]

Vermont officially joins the fold:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GAY_MARRIAGE_VERMONT?SITE=VABRM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) -- Vermont on Tuesday became the fourth state to legalize gay marriage - and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The House recorded a dramatic 100-49 vote - the minimum needed - to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto. Its vote followed a much easier override vote in the Senate, which rebuffed the Republican governor with a vote of 23-5.

Vermont was the first state to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples and joins Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa in giving gays the right to marry. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.

[Ox]

Congratulations to Vermont. Hopefully it will inspire copycats.

[total]

I was really excited to see this, although a little jealous at the same time. Iowa before Minnesota? Hopefully once we get Pawlenty out of the head office we will be able to have same-sex marriages here as well.

I, for one, am totally against gay marriage.

Actually I'm against all marriages. Homosexuals just get lumped into the fray with the rest of them.

[National Kato]

This is great news. History will show these states to have done the right thing.

[MagGnome]

I, for one, am totally against gay marriage.

Actually I'm against all marriages. Homosexuals just get lumped into the fray with the rest of them.

I don't want to get married either, but I'd at least like the option.


Good for Vermont! One by one, here we go. :)

[Generation ABXY]

This may seem odd, and I admit I am somewhat ignorant of the issue, but I thought Vermont legalized gay marriage a long time ago.

[Ox]

No, civil unions were legal. Remember those? Back in 2004, they were evidence of how great and progressive Vermont was. Now they're evidence that Vermont was (until today) backwards and bigoted. ;)

[National Kato]

Cue 'activist legislature' outrage.

[Banacek]

No, civil unions were legal. Remember those? Back in 2004, they were evidence of how great and progressive Vermont was. Now they're evidence that Vermont was (until today) backwards and bigoted. ;)

Isn't Vermont filled with nothing but nudists and hippies? I can't believe they'd have a problem with anything.

[Generation ABXY]

Ah, civil unions, that explains it. Thanks, Ox.

[aVaKus]

Cue 'activist legislature' outrage.

Nothing yet, but it can't be too far off.

On a related note, check this out this vid. It's Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal refusing to co-sponser a repeal of Iowa's marriage equality bill.

y2s2R5qKhbo

[MagGnome]

That is a great video, thanks for sharing Avakus. :)

[Ox]

Cue 'activist legislature' outrage.
Actually, I'll be extremely surprised if any prominent conservative offers more than muted criticism of this. This (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGJhZGEwMjBmNzI3NDc0YjViMzYyMjdkYTE2NGFjNDQ=) is more likely to be the tone.

I mean, let's assume for argument's sake that conservatives are utterly without principle and inherently evil and despise gays and equality. Even so, they're not necessarily stupid. They know they have a much better chance of blocking gay marriage if it's pursued democratically than if it's pursued through the courts. So they have every reason to try to encourage legislation over litigation -- legislation can be blocked or reversed a lot more easily. If that requires offering some half-hearted praise or even silence on the occasional state that actually passes gay marriage through the legislature, that's the rhetorical ground you have to cede in order to make the case against stuff like Iowa, Massachusetts, and California. Plus, emphasizing that social change should go through the legislature rather than the courts helps conservatives with a host of other social issues, notably abortion (which, for a lot of them, is a heck of a lot more important than gay marriage). Expect golf claps, not boos.

[total]

I don't want to get married either, but I'd at least like the option.

Yeah I was being facetious but not really. Mags can do as he pleases, he transcends sexuality.

[mister slim]

No, civil unions were legal. Remember those? Back in 2004, they were evidence of how great and progressive Vermont was. Now they're evidence that Vermont was (until today) backwards and bigoted. ;)

You mean 2000 right? And many people had problems with civil unions being 'separate but equal' even then.

[BlackPete]

It's official: Vermont is also more progressive than California.

This has got to burn Californians something fierce.

[Ox]

You mean 2000 right? And many people had problems with civil unions being 'separate but equal' even then.
The bill was signed in 2000, but I was thinking of Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign, when he was widely praised for being "courageous" and "tolerant" despite explicitly stating he opposed gay marriage. Some people did have problems with it, but I'm struck at how somebody could read Howard Dean's 2004 statements about gay marriage today and be called a bigot. Generally speaking, there's been a big shift not just in tolerance for gay marriage, but intolerance for policies that fall short of gay marriage.

[johnperkins21]

Generally speaking, there's been a big shift not just in tolerance for gay marriage, but intolerance for policies that fall short of gay marriage.

Nowhere near a big enough shift if you ask me. I think there's a small, but vocal, group of people on the Internet who are intolerant of policies that don't offer equality. However, the majority of people still seem to oppose gay marriage. At least that's been my experience.

[iHap]

It's official: Vermont is also more progressive than California.

This has got to burn Californians something fierce.
I admit it's been getting warm in SoCal...but not burning.

[Ox]

Nowhere near a big enough shift if you ask me. I think there's a small, but vocal, group of people on the Internet who are intolerant of policies that don't offer equality. However, the majority of people still seem to oppose gay marriage. At least that's been my experience.
Yes. Perhaps I should have been clearer: there seems to be very little middle ground now. People who, in 2004, thought civil unions were a reasonable accomodation, now believe civil unions are what Hitler wanted. There's still a large bulk of people who oppose any liberalization of marriage laws, and a somewhat smaller bulk of people who think anything less than total equality is the same as fascism. And that's pretty much it.

[mister slim]

The bill was signed in 2000, but I was thinking of Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign, when he was widely praised for being "courageous" and "tolerant" despite explicitly stating he opposed gay marriage. Some people did have problems with it, but I'm struck at how somebody could read Howard Dean's 2004 statements about gay marriage today and be called a bigot. Generally speaking, there's been a big shift not just in tolerance for gay marriage, but intolerance for policies that fall short of gay marriage.

That's fairly common for any major societal shift. There's not a lot of tolerance for refusing women the right to vote, though clearly a hundred years ago there was a bit more spread on the issue.

Yes. Perhaps I should have been clearer: there seems to be very little middle ground now. People who, in 2004, thought civil unions were a reasonable accomodation, now believe civil unions are what Hitler wanted. There's still a large bulk of people who oppose any liberalization of marriage laws, and a somewhat smaller bulk of people who think anything less than total equality is the same as fascism. And that's pretty much it.

That's because in 2000 the spectrum was between those hoping for civil unions and those saying 'Fuck you, you deviants. You should all die of AIDS.' Marriage wasn't even an option, and that second group is a lot smaller now.

[Ox]

That's fairly common for any major societal shift. There's not a lot of tolerance for refusing women the right to vote, though clearly a hundred years ago there was a bit more spread on the issue.
Eventually? Sure. But we're talking five years here, and the progressives haven't even managed to amass a societywide majority around their position yet. It'd be the equivalent of going from "maybe women should have the vote" in 1910 to bra burning in 1915... even before they universally have the right to vote yet. I'm just struck by how rapidly the issue has... um. The verbs that are coming to mind are stuff like "radicalized," which has implications I don't want to use. Let's just say the issues has become very stark in a lot of people's minds extremely quickly.

That's because in 2000 the spectrum was between those hoping for civil unions and those saying 'Fuck you, you deviants. You should all die of AIDS.' Marriage wasn't even an option, and that second group is a lot smaller now.
I really, really wonder who the heck you knew in 2000. That said, you're simply reinforcing my point: the mainstream right wing has supposedly gone from "fuck you, you deviants, I hope you die of AIDS" to "obviously you get most civil rights, but maybe we shouldn't change marriage" in nine years? Crikey, that's a faster turnaround in political position than Werner von Braun's.

[National Kato]

...the mainstream right wing has supposedly gone from "fuck you, you deviants, I hope you die of AIDS" to "obviously you get most civil rights, but maybe we shouldn't change marriage" in nine years?

Really? Where is this groundswell of the conservative majority supporting equal rights under the law for homosexual couples? Oh, you just mean 'most civil rights.' Yeah, that's more like the conservatives I know.

I have to say, Ox, your last two comments have been a bit heavy with hyperbole. Supporters of equality now think civil unions are 'what Hitler wanted?' Anything less than equal rights is 'fascism?'

There are fringes on both sides. But I'm just not seeing your extremes in the mainstream.

Who are you hanging out with?

[mister slim]

Eventually? Sure. But we're talking five years here, and the progressives haven't even managed to amass a societywide majority around their position yet. It'd be the equivalent of going from "maybe women should have the vote" in 1910 to bra burning in 1915... even before they universally have the right to vote yet. I'm just struck by how rapidly the issue has... um. The verbs that are coming to mind are stuff like "radicalized," which has implications I don't want to use. Let's just say the issues has become very stark in a lot of people's minds extremely quickly.

Meh? Have you noticed how quickly cell phones have replaced land lines? How quickly vegetarian options went from rare to common? Societies change quickly all the time. And frequent debate only tends to increase the speed of changes. By the way, I can't believe you referenced 'bra burning'.


I really, really wonder who the heck you knew in 2000. That said, you're simply reinforcing my point: the mainstream right wing has supposedly gone from "fuck you, you deviants, I hope you die of AIDS" to "obviously you get most civil rights, but maybe we shouldn't change marriage" in nine years? Crikey, that's a faster turnaround in political position than Werner von Braun's.

I'm not allowed to use hyperbole when you're referencing Hitler?

[MagGnome]

I will go on record as saying I've always been against civil unions. To me it is just another example of "separate but equal". I was glad that Vermont passed Civil Unions, but at the same time I wanted more, and I'm really glad that they've finally legalized marriage. Hopefully more states will follow soon, including Minnesota.


Meh? Have you noticed how quickly cell phones have replaced land lines? How quickly vegetarian options went from rare to common? Societies change quickly all the time. And frequent debate only tends to increase the speed of changes. By the way, I can't believe you referenced 'bra burning'.

Ox seems to be forgetting a rather big factor - The Internet.

[Shrinn]

Republican friend of mine sent me an interesting Anti-Gay Marraige Article (http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad?page=1).

It basically says that Same-Sex marriage devalues marriage as a whole and leads to illegitimate children which ruins society. My first reaction is to say that marriage is being devalued without same-sex marriage being legalized.

Worth a read.

[MagGnome]

Republican friend of mine sent me an interesting Anti-Gay Marraige Article (http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad?page=1).

It basically says that Same-Sex marriage devalues marriage as a whole and leads to illegitimate children which ruins society. My first reaction is to say that marriage is being devalued without same-sex marriage being legalized.

Worth a read.

This argument has been put forth over and over, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Straight people are doing just fine "ruining" the "sanctity" of marriage.

[Banacek]

. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

So what?

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock.

The logical leap taken here is amazing. That's like 'Evel Knievel over Snake River Canyon' big.

[National Kato]

Shrinn, I've yet to read or hear an argument against homosexual marriage that holds up under inspection, barring arguing solely upon faith or ancient written texts. Especially when those same arguments are applied to heterosexual marriage.

I include the opinion you linked.

[Ox]

Meh? Have you noticed how quickly cell phones have replaced land lines? How quickly vegetarian options went from rare to common? Societies change quickly all the time. And frequent debate only tends to increase the speed of changes.
Isn't a change in the view over whether gay people should have equal rights kind of a more momentous one, and therefore more thoroughly rooted in deeply-held religious and ethical beliefs, than cell phones and vegetarianism? I just thought it was interesting to note, that's all.

I'm not allowed to use hyperbole when you're referencing Hitler?
I have no problem with your using hyperbole -- I thought you were being literal, that's all. I have literally been called a "bigot", a "fascist", and compared to Hitler by progressives while discussing gay marriage... and I'm in favor of it!

I have to say, Ox, your last two comments have been a bit heavy with hyperbole. Supporters of equality now think civil unions are 'what Hitler wanted?' Anything less than equal rights is 'fascism?'
Dude, take a look at this thread. We've got comparisons to Jim Crow (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=57840&postcount=14), the KKK (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=58365&postcount=62]Islamic extremists[/URL], [URL="http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=58470&postcount=83) (that one might be my favorite because he's explicitly comparing even parents who are OK with legal gay marriage but don't belong to churches that permit it to the Klan), and slavery (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=58568&postcount=126). I didn't see any Godwining, but I couldn't really bear to read through more than a few pages. I will repost this, though, because it's a fine example of exactly what I'm talking about:
People who support any law that denies homosexuals the same legal rights as any other human being are closed-minded, ignorant, pathetic, bigoted scum. They need to fuck off. All of them.

I take no position on whether Bingley Joe is right or wrong on this. I don't really care, frankly. But if, as you say, there is hyperbole, it is not my hyperbole. I'm providing a fair assessment of what at least some people think. Although I concede that perhaps my social circle, including this board, is highly unrepresentative.

[Ox]

This argument has been put forth over and over, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Straight people are doing just fine "ruining" the "sanctity" of marriage.
That's a bad argument: there are still some children occasionally born in wedlock. Therefore, marriage could theoretically be ruined even more. Stick to the principle that equality is more important than secondary effects like illegitimacy: it's a more principled and stronger argument.
Shrinn, I've yet to read or hear an argument against homosexual marriage that holds up under inspection, barring arguing solely upon faith or ancient written texts. Especially when those same arguments are applied to heterosexual marriage.
Well, obviously. If you had heard an argument you thought held up, you would be opposed to gay marriage. That's like saying, "I've yet to be hit by a bullet." All you're doing is tempting fate. ;)

[MagGnome]

The logical leap taken here is amazing. That's like 'Evel Knievel over Snake River Canyon' big.

How many people are getting married to have children these days anyway? The birth rate in the US is falling, and blaming homosexuals is a more than a little ridiculous.

[MagGnome]

That's a bad argument: there are still some children occasionally born in wedlock. Therefore, marriage could theoretically be ruined even more. Stick to the principle that equality is more important than secondary effects like illegitimacy: it's a more principled and stronger argument.

I know it's a bad argument - that's my whole point! To say that same-sex marriage will ruin heterosexual marriage is silly!

Apparently I love exclamations!

[Banacek]

How many people are getting married to have children these days anyway? The birth rate in the US is falling, and blaming homosexuals is a more than a little ridiculous.

Besides the Quiverfulls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull)? I doubt anyone is. Marriage has been about the couple for a while now. I do know a lot of Catholics that got married because of a pregnancy :)

[MagGnome]

Besides, the Quiverfulls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull)? I doubt anyone is. Marriage has been about the couple for a while now. I do know a lot of Catholics that got married because of a pregnancy :)

I think that we are going to see marriage rates decline in general, if we haven't already. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but it seems as if my generation is in a lot less of a hurry to settle down than their parents and grandparents. I'm sure there are hard numbers out there, but I'm too lazy to go looking for them at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if Ox threw out some stats though.

[Ox]

How many people are getting married to have children these days anyway? The birth rate in the US is falling, and blaming homosexuals is a more than a little ridiculous.
The birth rate in the U.S. is not falling: in 2007, absolute births hit an all-time high (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-18-birth-rates-30s_N.htm). And the births per woman -- 2.1 -- is at its highest point since the 1970s (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/birth-rate-us-baby-boomers). All ethnic groups experienced rises, from less than one percent for Hispanic women to six percent for Asian and Pacific Islander women.

I know it's a bad argument - that's my whole point!
I figure you're yanking my chain, but just in case: I'm saying your argument is even worse. Moreover, you don't need that argument. Jettison it.

I think that we are going to see marriage rates decline in general, if we haven't already. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but it seems as if my generation is in a lot less of a hurry to settle down than their parents and grandparents. I'm sure there are hard numbers out there, but I'm too lazy to go looking for them at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if Ox threw out some stats though.
Mags, I am delighted to accept your invitation. In fact, young people's fertility has been declining (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_12.pdf) (PDF warning) since 1990, and although there's been a tiny bump in in teen births the past few years of 5%, it's been miniscule compared to the prior drop of 34%. For the age cohorts in their twenties, there was a 1% rise in 2007. Women in their thirties experienced a similar small increase. So it seems folks are happy to have kids (the abortion rate also declined in the same period).

But marriage rates are falling, especially for childbearing women. Illegitimacy increased 4% in 2007. Interestingly, the steep rise in illegitimacy began in 2002 and illegitimacy has increased 26 percent in that time. 38.5% of all American births in 2007 were to women without rings on their fingers. What's particularly interesting is that, between1980 and 1996 (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf), the fertility of married women was decreasing while the fertility of unmarried women has been increasing. Since 1996, the fertility of married women has rebounded even as unmarried women have continued to increase their fertility (although there was a lull in this growth between 1998-2002, that was short-lived). And your observation is certainly correct on one ground: of women giving birth in their twenties, now more than half of those births are to unwed mothers. Twenty years ago, it was more like a third. This increase has been observed in all ethnic groups, including an illegitimacy rate of 26.6% for non-Hispanic white and a 70.7% rate for non-Hispanic black women.

A little more on this point, since it's the crux of the "ruining marriage" argument: marriage rates have declined 50% (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm) since 1970, and they continue to decline. Less than 4% of unmarried women get married in any given year. Cohabitation data isn't as regularly recorded as births and marriages (you don't need to fill out a government form when you move in together), so recent excellent data is hard to come by. But an estimated 40% of children will spend at least some of the juvenile lives living with one parent and a cohabitating partner, and only 63% of U.S. children grow up with both biological parents (one of the lowest rates in the industrialized world).

In short, we're not waiting to have kids. We're just not settling down when we do.

[mister slim]

Isn't a change in the view over whether gay people should have equal rights kind of a more momentous one, and therefore more thoroughly rooted in deeply-held religious and ethical beliefs, than cell phones and vegetarianism? I just thought it was interesting to note, that's all.


I have no problem with your using hyperbole -- I thought you were being literal, that's all. I have literally been called a "bigot", a "fascist", and compared to Hitler by progressives while discussing gay marriage... and I'm in favor of it!

Most (but not all) of the vegetarians and vegans I know follow the diet for ethical reasons. How momentous a change is will be mostly dependent on your perspective and also what those equal rights are, as ten years ago Vermont thought that gays should have equal rights but not marriage. I mean, cell phones are completely altering the way our society communicates in ways that aren't apparent even now, while only 5% of the population is gay, so less than that will ever be married. As an atheist, I don't have an investment in a religion that would make the change more momentous, though I recognize my Mormon cousins are going to feel differently.

As to the name-calling, at this point I don't even bother with people who aren't arguing in good faith.

[Ox]

As to the name-calling, at this point I don't even bother with people who aren't arguing in good faith.
Heck, if the name-calling was dishonest, it wouldn't bother me so much. I've often been compared to Stalin and various fascists by opposing counsel. It's annoying but I know it's just a tactic. It's when someone genuinely believes I am evil that I get concerned. I mean, I am evil, but I'd prefer to avoid the whole torches-and-pitchforks scene.

Good point on the vegetarianism, of course. But just because you're an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you don't have ethical principles. And there's no rule that says non-religious ethical principles are any less likely to get someone fired up than religious ones are.

[Banacek]

Heck, if the name-calling was dishonest, it wouldn't bother me so much. I've often been compared to Stalin and various fascists by opposing counsel.

Are you claiming that you don't send your enemies to Siberia to be slaughtered? :)

[Ox]

Are you claiming that you don't send your enemies to Siberia to be slaughtered? :)
Of course not, don't be ridiculous. If I sent them to Siberia, I couldn't see the pain and anguish on their faces as I systematically destroyed all their hopes and dreams. I think it's so important to find satisfaction in your work, don't you?

[Johan]

This thread was never much more than an opportunity to browbeat people who disagree with the echo chamber here and to call them disgusting and abhorrent names; the thread title is incredibly ironic.

I congratulate Vermonters in actually taking a democratic approach to the issue. The legislature is the place where laws should be created, not the judiciary, which should interpret the laws, not write them at whim. Several other states may follow legislatively, which is where this should be handled. Many others have already legislatively, and state-constitutionally, opposed gay marriage. That is the right of individual states and their legislators and residents.

Republican friend of mine sent me an interesting Anti-Gay Marraige Article (http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad?page=1).

Interesting read. Thanks for the link. Here's another. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)

Carry on! Toss a few labels, if you wish!

[CES]

Of course not, don't be ridiculous. If I sent them to Siberia, I couldn't see the pain and anguish on their faces as I systematically destroyed all their hopes and dreams. I think it's so important to find satisfaction in your work, don't you?

Set up a few dozen webcams and get the best of both worlds.

[Shrinn]

This argument has been put forth over and over, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Straight people are doing just fine "ruining" the "sanctity" of marriage.

Shrinn, I've yet to read or hear an argument against homosexual marriage that holds up under inspection, barring arguing solely upon faith or ancient written texts. Especially when those same arguments are applied to heterosexual marriage.

I include the opinion you linked.

I don't know if you guys realize it, but I shot down the argument myself in the very post you're referring to by saying that it's getting ruined without same-sex marriage. My purpose was to raise and rebut an argument that my roommate brought up, not disagree with you guys.

The logical leap taken here is amazing. That's like 'Evel Knievel over Snake River Canyon' big.

If you're referring to the logical leap from "less important marriages" to "more children out of wedlock", I'm afraid I don't understand your problem with it.

If you're referring to the "blame homosexuals" part, I'd have to agree with you.

The legislature is the place where laws should be created, not the judiciary, which should interpret the laws, not write them at whim.

I agree with you in a way. The legislature should make the laws but in cases of inequality and lack of due process the judiciary can step in. Things like "separate but equal" schools were handled by the judiciary. It gets into bills of attainder, where the legislature cannot pass a bill punishing someone before they receive a trial.

Interesting read. Thanks for the link. Here's another. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)

While that person makes a compelling point, I'm not sure if the point applies so much to the gay marriage argument.

My interpretation:
-Making life easier for unwed mothers increased unwed mothers because they destigmatized it.
-Making divorce easier made it less fair and destigmatized it, so it increased as well.
-Making same-sex marriage legal will make it easier for homosexuals to marry resulting in...what? (increase in the number of married homosexuals?) (decrease in the number of married heterosexuals?)

The problem with an argument like that is that they're two separate groups. Unwed mothers take out of the pool of wed mothers. Divorced couples take out of the pool of wed couples. But married homosexuals do not remove married heterosexuals from the pool of married people. Except for the tiny pool of homosexuals who pretend to be hetero because of the social stigma, there won't be a big change in the possible number of heteros who can get married. It comes back to cultural perception of a marriage. And that's declining anyway.

I realize the argument is made to prove that just because it won't affect you does not mean it won't affect the majority, but if people say "I'm not going to marry my wife because those gays next door are also married" what does that say about that person? And how can America justify NOT guaranteeing equality because of the supposed greater good?

If America is supposed to hold equality and diversity before all else who gets to decide where the line is drawn? What would give them the right to say "America needs marriages, even though they're declining anyway, so gays aren't equal to help protect marriages"?

And for my final question; We can all agree that marriage is nowhere near as significant to society as a whole as it used to be, I think (correct me if I'm wrong). Which came first, marriage declining in significance (resulting in the argument for allowing gays to marry) or the argument for gays to marry (resulting in the declining of marriage's significance)?

[National Kato]

Well, obviously. If you had heard an argument you thought held up, you would be opposed to gay marriage.

Not necessarily. Do you switch your beliefs as soon as someone raises a valid point? Of course not. I might be able to understand their opinion, however, which leads to a more balanced discussion. As it stands now, I just think a lot of them are either ignorant or bigoted.

[Panthera]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link. Here's another. (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)

Wow. That was a really long-winded way of invoking the slippery slope fallacy while disingenuously pretending to not have an opinion. Thanks for wasting my time.

[Ox]

Not necessarily. Do you switch your beliefs as soon as someone raises a valid point? Of course not. I might be able to understand their opinion, however, which leads to a more balanced discussion.
You're right, I was too flippant. Withdrawn.

Things like "separate but equal" schools were handled by the judiciary. It gets into bills of attainder, where the legislature cannot pass a bill punishing someone before they receive a trial.
Uhhh... I don't know what bills of attainder have to do with anything. They're not relevant to gay marriage.

if people say "I'm not going to marry my wife because those gays next door are also married" what does that say about that person?
Probably nothing good. But c'mon: if you're a decent human being, you'll marry the mother of your children regardless of cultural norms. By definition, anyone who is fathering children out of wedlock is a scumbag. One of the most important purposes of cultural norms and legal rules is to restrain the bad man and encourage or compel him to do things he wouldn't bother to do if left to his own devices.

I know everyone gets tired of analogies, but think about drunk driving: obviously, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being if you drive drunk. But we institute all sorts of legal rules and encourage cultural norms (e.g., "Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk") to discourage even the pathetic excuses from doing it.

And how can America justify NOT guaranteeing equality because of the supposed greater good?
We restrain equality and liberty pretty often in the name of the greater good: think of the regulations surrounding gun possession, despite the fact that few gun possessors commit crimes. In other places, we draw the line and say equality and liberty are more important. We use a mixed and often illogical combination of sacrosanct rights and utilitarian calculus throughout our policy justifications.

If America is supposed to hold equality and diversity before all else who gets to decide where the line is drawn? What would give them the right to say "America needs marriages, even though they're declining anyway, so gays aren't equal to help protect marriages"?
I don't know where you get this, but I vehemently disagree that we should hold equality and diversity before all else. Liberty is important, equality is a nice add-on, and diversity is really not worth much at all.

But even conceding that, you could pretty much raise the same objection to copyright and campaign finance laws (restricting free speech for the greater good), patents, criminal punishment, jury service, conscription, taxation, and a host of other noncontroversial government functions. Who gets to decide? The voting majority, checked by the judiciary. What gives them the right? They have the most guns. As it was and as it shall ever be.

Which came first, marriage declining in significance (resulting in the argument for allowing gays to marry) or the argument for gays to marry (resulting in the declining of marriage's significance)?
Marriage rates have been declining since the liberalization of divorce; however, they seemed to plateau in the late 1990s until 2002. Vermont legalized civil unions in 2000, so one could argue that the argument for gay marriage (which heated up around that time) slightly preceded the renewed decline in marriages (especially if you assume that most engagements last several months, and probably few who had already decided to get married called it off after Vermont permitted civil unions). The two appear to be roughly correlated, but obviously that's not the same as causation.

Looking abroad, I know there's been a lot of bickering over Scandanavia. Everyone agrees that Scandanavian marriage rates were falling since the 1970s, and everyone agrees they continued to fall after gay marriage was legalized. What's unknowable is whether the marriage rate would have stabilized in the absence of gay marriage.

Ultimately, I'm skeptical of the "ruining marriages" argument. But I think you don't state it fairly. The argument isn't that people will see gays getting married and decide not to marry themselves. Rather, in order to permit gay marriage the concept of marriage has to be changed: it must no longer be a legal recognition of an underlying social compact that each party is covenanted to each other and their offspring, owing mutual duties of care and affection to protect their children. Marriage must be severed from the notion of childcare, and it must be conceived as a contractual bond rather than a holy convenanted one. Which has already happened to a large extent: the liberalization of divorce and the rise of technological reproduction, as well as the destimgatization of illegitimacy (again largely brought about by changes in law) accomplished much of that. And all gay marriage arguments are more-or-less explicitly grounded on the notion that the contractual view of marriage is the only valid one, and any mystical or child-focused view is bigoted and foolish.

But if marriage is a contract between two parties, then it's a stupid contract. It's needlessly inflexible, one-size-fits-all, the rights are very poorly defined, and (thanks to no-fault divorce) there are no penalties for breach. I understand why the symbolism of marital exclusion matters to gay people, but as a straight person, I cannot see any compelling reason to enter into such a contract. Cohabitation is far more flexible, can be defined a lot more precisely if you want, and if it breaks up, it's possible to disentangle yourselves without hiring a lawyer. I'm not saying that gay marriage would make me less likely to marry, I'm saying the social view of marriage that has arisen in the past century makes sound pretty unattractive. Indeed, this social view will likely predominant regardless of whether gay marriage is passed or not. So the main reason I'm skeptical of the "ruining marriages" argument is simply because the disaster can no longer be averted. If we're going to have an asinine regulatory system, we might as well be nondiscriminatory in our asininity.

[Bone]

Probably nothing good. But c'mon: if you're a decent human being, you'll marry the mother of your children regardless of cultural norms. By definition, anyone who is fathering children out of wedlock is a scumbag. One of the most important purposes of cultural norms and legal rules is to restrain the bad man and encourage or compel him to do things he wouldn't bother to do if left to his own devices.
To me, this argument is tiresome and as facetious as the idea that only by having faith in God can you live a moral life. It's very close to the same argument, in my mind.

Men who have babies out of wedlock and then fail to be a father ARE scumbags by definition, but there's nothing inherent to marriage that makes a man take care of his kids. There are plenty of married men who neglect their children, and plenty of men who take great care of their children while not putting much stock into the institution of marriage.

[Panthera]

Rather, in order to permit gay marriage the concept of marriage has to be changed: it must no longer be a legal recognition of an underlying social compact that each party is covenanted to each other and their offspring, owing mutual duties of care and affection to protect their children. Marriage must be severed from the notion of childcare, and it must be conceived as a contractual bond rather than a holy convenanted one. Which has already happened to a large extent: the liberalization of divorce and the rise of technological reproduction, as well as the destimgatization of illegitimacy (again largely brought about by changes in law) accomplished much of that. And all gay marriage arguments are more-or-less explicitly grounded on the notion that the contractual view of marriage is the only valid one, and any mystical or child-focused view is bigoted and foolish.


Now, hold on here. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Why does permitting gay marriage require severing it from the notion of childcare? Do only biological offspring count? I see that you do recognize that the change has already more or less happened, but I do question if the laws caused the destigmatization, and didn't simply reflect the values that were already changing, just as the spreading legalization of gay marriage reflects changing attitudes and greater acceptance. There hasn't exactly been rioting in the streets.

[Shrinn]

Uhhh... I don't know what bills of attainder have to do with anything. They're not relevant to gay marriage.

Stupid stretch of the definition. My mistake.

Who gets to decide? The voting majority, checked by the judiciary. What gives them the right? They have the most guns. As it was and as it shall ever be.


You're right. And they're the ones making the decisions now, not the courts anymore. It's only a matter of time now before each state has their own yes or no position on same-sex marriage. I wonder if we'll have situations where the homosexuals congregate in those areas that allow it to the point that it creates a "gay state" mentality towards said states. I have to wonder if these states will be opening the flood gates for other states to legalize as well.


The two appear to be roughly correlated, but obviously that's not the same as causation.

What's unknowable is whether the marriage rate would have stabilized in the absence of gay marriage.


Thanks for that. Very interesting statistics to see.

So the main reason I'm skeptical of the "ruining marriages" argument is simply because the disaster can no longer be averted. If we're going to have an asinine regulatory system, we might as well be nondiscriminatory in our asininity.

I completely agree with you, marriages are quickly becoming meaningless, with or without same-sex marriage.

Also, you're a fascist.

[torrefaction]

I'm with Panthera. Part of the reason gay's want marriage is to have the same inter-state rights and contractual obligations in regards to adopted children as a married straight couple.

[Shrinn]

Now, hold on here. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Why does permitting gay marriage require severing it from the notion of childcare?

My understanding is the changing of the purpose for marriage.

Old definition: Get married so I can have kids and raise a family and get the legal benefits.
New definition: Get married cause I love a person/want the legal benefits.

While homosexuals can raise children, the marriage isn't a result of the desire to do so. And that's a fault of their sexuality (they can't produce it themselves) as much as the destigmatization of unwed childbirth.

I'm with Panthera. Part of the reason gay's want marriage is to have the same inter-state rights and contractual obligations in regards to adopted children as a married straight couple.

Quite simply because history automatically placed a man and a woman in charge of raising children. And this may sound like I'm being a dick but most of the world still believes that that is the only correct solution for child rearing.

[National Kato]

Not to mention how some industries, e.g. life insurance/financial services, treat non-married couples as opposed to married couples. I'm pretty sure you can't purchase a Second To Die life policy or a joint annuity with your partner.

As I've said from the very beginning: let the religions have the term marriage. Give equal rights under the law to all.

[torrefaction]

The problem is gay adoptions are already allowed, and interstate rights for those situations are important.

*Edit*

Also, I'm all for abandoning any government condoning of the term marriage. It's a religious institution and should have been left that way.

[Banacek]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/08/out.of.wedlock.births/index.html?iref=t2test_livingwed

Looks like the gays have nothing to do with it. I do love the fact that when not pressured with marriage, men tend to stay with the mother of their children on their own.

[Panthera]

Also, I'm all for abandoning any government condoning of the term marriage. It's a religious institution and should have been left that way.

You know, I've heard that often lately, and I seriously wonder where people are getting that from. Their churches, I guess. Marriage is a cultural, not religious practice. It's been around for a lot longer than monotheistic religion, and evolved in population centers all over the world. Churches provide ceremonies, but it's always been about the social contract. There are plenty of atheists who have no trouble at all with traditional marriage.

[torrefaction]

You know, I've heard that often lately, and I seriously wonder where people are getting that from. Their churches, I guess. Marriage is a cultural, not religious practice. It's been around for a lot longer than monotheistic religion, and evolved in population centers all over the world. Churches provide ceremonies, but it's always been about the social contract. There are plenty of atheists who have no trouble at all with traditional marriage.

Name a cultural marriage that was not ordained by the religion of the time.

*Edit*

Until recently, I'm saying. Yes, we allow civil marriage with no minister in the states, I think you understood my point though. Just getting that in there preemptively.

[BlackPete]

Just because pics are fun, and I've been seeing the same type of logic being used in this thread... so here ya go!

http://www.jbs-blog.com/images/GayMarriage.jpg

There was another one I wanted to post but my google-fu is not working this morning. It was a white trash couple where the groom was sleeveless, and the bridge is wearing a bad dress and holding a lit cigarette. Sanctity of marriage indeed.

[Shrinn]

Give equal rights under the law to all.

I thought the problem with civil unions was "Separate but equal isn't equal". I may be wrong.

[torrefaction]

I thought the problem with civil unions was "Separate but equal isn't equal". I may be wrong.

If marriage is no longer a federal or state concept, then it's not longer a separate right. It's merely a term used by religions to frame their holy union under God, and has no legal implications.

[Ox]

To me, this argument is tiresome and as facetious as the idea that only by having faith in God can you live a moral life. It's very close to the same argument, in my mind.
No, not really.

Men who have babies out of wedlock and then fail to be a father ARE scumbags by definition, but there's nothing inherent to marriage that makes a man take care of his kids. There are plenty of married men who neglect their children, and plenty of men who take great care of their children while not putting much stock into the institution of marriage.
Yes, obviously plenty of married men neglect their children. And those are bad people whom our cultural norms have failed to restrain. As for unmarried men who claim to be good fathers, I am extremely skeptical. Marriage, whatever else, is a commitment to both the mother and the children. Even today, there is some stigma to illegitimacy, and "not putting much stock into the institution of marriage" is no excuse for exposing your innocent children to that stigma. Illegitimate children wonder why their father never felt the urge to cement his relationship, and no amount of high-minded excuses can dispel their uncertainty. Cohabitation is inherently casual, and anyone who treats any aspect of fatherhood casually is scum.

Now, hold on here. I'm not really sure what you're saying. Why does permitting gay marriage require severing it from the notion of childcare? Do only biological offspring count? I see that you do recognize that the change has already more or less happened, but I do question if the laws caused the destigmatization, and didn't simply reflect the values that were already changing, just as the spreading legalization of gay marriage reflects changing attitudes and greater acceptance. There hasn't exactly been rioting in the streets.
I'll take the last first. Law and culture are interrelated. Divorce was liberalized because cultural attitudes had changed from the Puritan days, but the change in divorce laws also led to a further change in the views of marriage. Think about how often in a political or moral discussion someone will invoke some principle of law or the Constitution. Now, the law isn't really strictly relevant to a question of morality (unless we're talking about contravening some law), but just as every political question in America is phrased as a judicial one (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch16.htm), so too every moral issue sooner or later gets phrased as a legal one. It's sort of a national intellectual deficiency.

As for why gay marriage requires severing it from the notion of childcare... sure, gay couples can adopt. But it's not exactly guaranteed, or even all that common. And every time conservatives have tried to claim that marriage is an institution for raising children, they're called idiots who aren't aware of the large number of marriages that don't produce offspring (http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageKids.htm). So the gay marriage argument is explicitly grounded on the assumption that marriage and childrearing are separate.

Could one theoretically imagine a pro-gay-marriage movement for the purpose of raising adopted children? Sure. But (although that argument is occasionally offered as an aside) that is not the movement we have. The movement we have says that marriage and childrearing are totally separate and unrelated. So that's why gay marriage is severed from the notion of childcare.

EDIT:
It was a white trash couple where the groom was sleeveless, and the bridge is wearing a bad dress and holding a lit cigarette. Sanctity of marriage indeed.
Surely we can all agree that marrying bridges would be an abomination unto God and should be illegal.

[Banacek]

Are we talking about tightening up the divorce laws? I'm all for that.

[Ox]

Are we talking about tightening up the divorce laws? I'm all for that.
Why? Marriage is just a contract. For all other contracts, if both parties wish to walk away, they can.

[Banacek]

Why? Marriage is just a contract. For all other contracts, if both parties wish to walk away, they can.

Even if there are parties damaged by the nullification of the contract?

[BlackPete]

Even if there are parties damaged by the nullification of the contract?

When the alternative is to be even MORE damaged by the couple staying together even when they hate each others guts?

I'd say yes. Wholeheartedly.

[Bone]

No, not really.That's all? My opinion is just wrong? I feel like the argument uses the same appeal to emotion and religion to infer that without x, you can't possibly come to y on your own. And neither argument holds water.


Cohabitation is inherently casual, and anyone who treats any aspect of fatherhood casually is scum.Because of your previous dismissal of mine, I feel comfortable saying your opinion is wrong. My wife and I "cohabitated" for years, and found it to be the best thing for us as a couple, before we got married. We have lots of friends who did the same and enjoy some of the strongest relationships I've ever seen. And I personally know a lot of people who had their kids out of wedlock- most to marry later- who were just fine. None of them are scum by definition and certainly not because your view of their lifestyle makes them out to be.

[Panthera]

Name a cultural marriage that was not ordained by the religion of the time.

*Edit*

Until recently, I'm saying. Yes, we allow civil marriage with no minister in the states, I think you understood my point though. Just getting that in there preemptively.

I'm sure I could dig up an example, but why exactly does that mean it was a religious practice? Does the lavish feasting mean it was primarily a culinary phenomenon? Pagan priests all over the world prayed and gave sacrifice for the harvests, does that mean the harvests were a matter between man and god?

In fact, I'm given to think this transformation of marriage into a purely religious topic is a more recent phenomenon. A bit of reading (wikipedia is a good start) suggests that "For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[10] Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been stressed.[11]"

Ah, and, here's your example right below: "In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly."

"Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.[11] Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement."

Cites can be followed here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#European_marriages

[Panthera]

When the alternative is to be even MORE damaged by the couple staying together even when they hate each others guts?

I'd say yes. Wholeheartedly.

I agree, and partially from experience.

[National Kato]

As for unmarried men who claim to be good fathers, I am extremely skeptical.

Really? This magical certificate makes them 'good' all of a sudden? Bullshit. A good father has nothing to do with the ceremony of marriage. Most single fathers I know are very good men. Same goes for single mothers. I'm going to have to conclude that you and I just fundamentally disagree about what constitutes a positive upbringing and parenthood.

[Banacek]

When the alternative is to be even MORE damaged by the couple staying together even when they hate each others guts?

I'd say yes. Wholeheartedly.

Not every couple is the same. Your argument assumes that all couples are filled with abuse, and that just isn't the case. They say that bringing up a child with a single parent is bad. Does that include children after a divorce?

Removing abuse cases aside, I just don't see how a no fault divorce is good for a case where there is children. It just reinforces the idea that there is no consequences for people's actions. I don't know. Maybe I'm just jaded from my age group. Where I'm from, when I grew up, it was more rare to see a kids who's parents are still together. Most dad's jumped ship. Then again, most dads got married because they got someone pregnant and shotgun weddings were the 'right thing to do'. That solution sucked.

If I was going to change the system, here's what I'd do:
1) No marriages till after age 25
2) Marriage requires a year course with a passing grade. Topics include finances, problem resolution, and things like that
3) If there are no children, then a no fault divorce is fine. No one owes the other party anything, both just go their separate ways.
4) If there is abuse the marriage is immediately terminated and the abuser loses all rights in the proceedings and jail time (sorry, but I have no tolerance for wife and children abusers)
5) If there are children then exit counseling is required before the divorce takes place.

Now, my plan violates everyone's 'rights', so it would never happen. Ox will be in shortly to explain why it would never work :)

[TheFlyingOrc]

Just because pics are fun, and I've been seeing the same type of logic being used in this thread... so here ya go!

http://www.jbs-blog.com/images/GayMarriage.jpg

There was another one I wanted to post but my google-fu is not working this morning. It was a white trash couple where the groom was sleeveless, and the bridge is wearing a bad dress and holding a lit cigarette. Sanctity of marriage indeed.

Actually, this is backwards. The original marriage laws were created IN ORDER TO discriminate against minorities, which is why I wish the government didn't recognize them at all.

[torrefaction]

Well, then, my bad Panthera for not doing proper research on this. I don't really stand on the religion side of the issue (I'm an atheist), but that argument always made sense to me.

Until now.

[Ox]

Even if there are parties damaged by the nullification of the contract?
As a general rule, yes. There are instances in which a contract was designed to benefit a third party, in which case the third party might be able to compel fulfillment of a contract... but only if the original contractor breached. If both contractors agree to void the contract, the third party beneficiary can't force them to stay and work it out.

I feel like the argument uses the same appeal to emotion and religion to infer that without x, you can't possibly come to y on your own.
Do I think you can be emotionally attached to your kids and shower them with love and affection even without a marriage certificate? Yes. Do I think that's enough? No. There is an element of emotion here, because I'm talking about commitment and dedication and sparing your children angst and these are inherently emotional concepts. But just because I'm talking about emotions doesn't mean my argument must be wrong. And I don't believe I've appealed to religion at all in this argument, except to note that religion exists and it often shapes people's views about marriage.

Because of your previous dismissal of mine, I feel comfortable saying your opinion is wrong.
Don't pretend you've ever had the slightest hesitation about calling me wrong before.
My wife and I "cohabitated" for years, and found it to be the best thing for us as a couple, before we got married. We have lots of friends who did the same and enjoy some of the strongest relationships I've ever seen. And I personally know a lot of people who had their kids out of wedlock- most to marry later- who were just fine. None of them are scum by definition and certainly not because your view of their lifestyle makes them out to be.
So we're clear: just because I think they're bad parents, doesn't mean anything. But because you think they're good parents, that must mean you're right. And I'm the illogical one.

I'm going to have to conclude that you and I just fundamentally disagree about what constitutes a positive upbringing and parenthood.
Maybe so, and I can respect that. But before we just agree to disagree, let me ask this: do you think a child raised out of wedlock is any more likely to suffer ill consequences -- emotional, physical, financial, what-have-you -- due to that status? Do you think couples who have "shotgun weddings" or stay together "for the kids" are idiots, or do they reasonably believe they're doing what's best for the kids? I'm excluding abusive or violent households from this, obviously. I'm not convinced you really think marriage is wholly trivial to a child's upbringing.

EDIT: Torre, note that Panthera sort of stacked the deck a little there. He reached back to the Greeks and Romans and noted that they weren't particularly religious about marriage. Of course, you could argue that our culture isn't purely descended from Greco-Romanism but also includes a substantial fraction of Jewish tradition, where marriage was deeply religious.

Ox will be in shortly to explain why it would never work
Don't get me wrong, I'm very sympathetic to your goals and your reforms sound common-sense. The biggest problem I see, though, is that heterosexual couples are going to have sex, married or not. That sex will sometimes produce offspring. While liberalization has made marriage less popular, I'm not sure tightening the rules will make marriage more popular. And I'd rather see kids born in wedlock and later go through easy divorces than to just destroy marriage altogether.

[Bone]

Do I think you can be emotionally attached to your kids and shower them with love and affection even without a marriage certificate? Yes. Do I think that's enough? No. There is an element of emotion here, because I'm talking about commitment and dedication and sparing your children angst and these are inherently emotional concepts. But just because I'm talking about emotions doesn't mean my argument must be wrong.Sure, but this is opinion and not fact.



Don't pretend you've ever had the slightest hesitation about calling me wrong before.Why do you insist on dredging up past arguments that have no bearing on this one? It's one thing to argue facts, but telling me my opinion is wrong isn't going anywhere. I responded in kind to point out the futility in dismissing someone's opinion.


So we're clear: just because I think they're bad parents, doesn't mean anything. But because you think they're good parents, that must mean you're right. And I'm the illogical one.No- again, pointing out that your opinion doesn't make something a fact. Saying something is "inherent" is stating it as a fact, and really it's just your opinion again. My opinion was stated as such- it's entirely anecdotal that I know many, many good people who cohabitated and had kids out of wedlock and felt the responsibilities to relationship and children that you are claiming as impossible.

[torrefaction]

I've watched a lot of kids who have to "split time" with their parents grow up to be FAR more functional than the kids who's parents stayed together despite a growing dislike for each other. Because they were loved on their own terms, as their parent's child, rather than the person bearing the responsibility for staying with someone you hate.

Actually, my anecdotal evidence for that would be that EVERY kid who's parents stayed together despite disliking each other ended up pretty fucked up.

I've only managed to see the negative impacts of marriage over the years. I've never really seen it as an inherent positive or negative towards a kid as a social structure though. I think that's all in the amount of nurturing the parents give the child.

[Ox]

No- again, pointing out that your opinion doesn't make something a fact. Saying something is "inherent" is stating it as a fact, and really it's just your opinion again. My opinion was stated as such- it's entirely anecdotal that I know many, many good people who cohabitated and had kids out of wedlock and felt the responsibilities to relationship and children that you are claiming as impossible.
No. You say that John, a cohabiting father, is "good people." That is a statement of fact. In truth, you are mistaken: John is a bad person.

Obviously, we disagree whether John is a good person or a bad person. We each have opinions on the matter. But we're each stating (what we believe to be) facts. Claiming that I'm just offering opinion while you're offering facts is muddy thinking. We both have opinions about what the facts are.

[National Kato]

But before we just agree to disagree, let me ask this: do you think a child raised out of wedlock is any more likely to suffer ill consequences -- emotional, physical, financial, what-have-you -- due to that status?

No, I really don't. Nearly 40% of all children born in the United States in 2007 were born to single mothers, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, a 25% percent jump from five years prior. Do I see this as a precursor to some dire future for the children involved? Not at all. Those same consequences you mention - emotional, physical, and financial - occur often within married families. I just don't see a marriage certificate issued by the state as the magic pill that makes households and families healthy and happy. The stigma of being born out of wedlock is greatly diminished, if not completely eradicated.

Do you think couples who have "shotgun weddings" or stay together "for the kids" are idiots, or do they reasonably believe they're doing what's best for the kids?

Both, in certain circumstances. As a child of a marriage that stayed together much longer than it should've for "the kids'" sake, I think children at a certain age are smart enough to know when parents don't love each other. Younger than that, the effects are less obvious...but you can't just assume the effects are good.

I'm not convinced you really think marriage is wholly trivial to a child's upbringing.

I do believe marriage is trivial. The relationship upon which that marriage is founded is not. A certificate does not ensure a successful, happy family nor does it promise a healthy, happy child.

[Bone]

No. You say that John, a cohabiting father, is "good people." That is a statement of fact. In truth, you are mistaken: John is a bad person.

Obviously, we disagree whether John is a good person or a bad person. We each have opinions on the matter. But we're each stating (what we believe to be) facts. Claiming that I'm just offering opinion while you're offering facts is muddy thinking. We both have opinions about what the facts are.
But I didn't claim to be offering facts- in fact, the opposite- and you made blanket statements such as having a child out of wedlock makes someone inherently a scumbag. If it is inherently so, what do you have to back it up? I never said having kids out of wedlock is inherently good, just that I know people who appear to prove your statement of "inherence" wrong. That is, inherence implies the inability of a subject to exist without the qualities being described as inherent.

[Ox]

I just don't see a marriage certificate issued by the state as the magic pill that makes households and families healthy and happy.
You keep saying this. I assume you realize that's not my argument.
But I didn't claim to be offering facts- in fact, the opposite
That was far from clear. See, if you're offering opinions and specifically disavowing any factual content to those opinions, saying stuff like "you're wrong" sends mixed signals.
you made blanket statements such as having a child out of wedlock makes someone inherently a scumbag. If it is inherently so, what do you have to back it up?
I don't know why you feel the urge to misquote me. I said, "Cohabitation is inherently casual." Even if you think my opinions are wrong, maybe you can try a little harder to pay attention to what those opinions are.

EDIT: I did also claim that "by definition" men fathering children out of wedlock were scumbags. I don't want to get into a Kantian debate over whether this is an analytic or synthetic truth. So I'll withdraw the "by definition" part and just say men who have kids out of wedlock are scum.

[Ox]

Thanks, Keck.

[TheKeck]

Thanks for what? ;)

[BlackPete]

Not every couple is the same. Your argument assumes that all couples are filled with abuse, and that just isn't the case. They say that bringing up a child with a single parent is bad. Does that include children after a divorce?

Removing abuse cases aside, I just don't see how a no fault divorce is good for a case where there is children.

When relationship ceases to exist as a relationship and you end up as being more roomies than partners, then it creates some very awkward situations for the child.

Children aren't stupid. They know when they're being bullshitted to, and that's exactly what the parents are doing by trying to put up an unified front by staying together despite their private feelings. The child will then have to deal with mixed messages while growing up.

If the parents are then roomies, do they get to see/date other people? That doesn't send a very strong commitment message to the child.

If the parents must stay together and NOT see other people despite their own feelings/desires, then their souls will eventually die, and the child will NOT be living with the same people regardless.

Relationships and divorces are very complex issues, especially when you bring children into it, but there's one fundamental thing that I strongly believe in: Do not try to bullshit the children. They will see through it. And they will either accept it and become bullshitters themselves, or end up being fucked up in unseen ways until years later.

[Ox]

If the parents must stay together and NOT see other people despite their own feelings/desires, then their souls will eventually die, and the child will NOT be living with the same people regardless.
I find it funny that I get slammed for supposedly making irrational emotional and religious arguments, but you can posit an eschatology in which failure to find romantic love kills one's soul.

[Banacek]

Relationships and divorces are very complex issues, especially when you bring children into it, but there's one fundamental fact that I strongly believe in: Do not try to bullshit the children. They will see through it. And they will either accept it and become bullshitters themselves, or end up being fucked up in unseen ways until years later.

I totally agree. I just hate the current system that just assumes that the parents know the correct way to deal with the children and help them cope. That clearly just isn't the case. Most people have no clue how to deal with themselves, let alone children. Just like getting married doesn't magically make you a good parent.

[Bone]

That was far from clear. See, if you're offering opinions and specifically disavowing any factual content to those opinions, saying stuff like "you're wrong" sends mixed signals.Ok, but I thought I was clear by prefacing my "you're wrong" with "since you dismissed my opinion as wrong". I agree, it's not a good way to argue. Which was my point.


I don't know why you feel the urge to misquote me. I said, "Cohabitation is inherently casual." Even if you think my opinions are wrong, maybe you can try a little harder to pay attention to what those opinions are.OK. Cohabitation is inherently casual? How so? My (now) wife and I lived together in an entirely non-casual way, and didn't come to the decision lightly.

I love how you jump to the personal attack on my attention span. I don't intend to scroll through the pages and grab all of your exact quotes. So I mixed up where you said "by definition" and "inherent". And you did use both of those.


EDIT: I did also claim that "by definition" men fathering children out of wedlock were scumbags. I don't want to get into a Kantian debate over whether this is an analytic or synthetic truth. So I'll withdraw the "by definition" part and just say men who have kids out of wedlock are scum.I could say that all lawyers are scum, and leave out the "by definition" as well. It just seems ridiculous and small-minded to write off so many people with a blanket statement, whether you couch it as fact or not. And no, I don't believe all lawyers are scum.

[Ox]

OK. Cohabitation is inherently casual? How so?
That's a trap. If I give you an answer, then you're going to say, 'If it's inherent, why are you explaining it?'

But I'll take your bait. You and your wife had two basic options. You could either get married or you could live together without getting married. Why pick one over the other? Marriage involves a ceremony in front of friends and family, a formal (albeit often empty) pledge to each other, a (now largely defunct) promise of lifelong commitment, legal and financial entanglements, mutual liability for debts, authority as next of kin for the other, inheritance rights, and sundry other obligations. You would agree to a presumption of paternity for any children she might bear.

Or you could just live together. No formal annoucement, no legal ties, no financial identity, no authority over each other's medical and other decisions, no presumption of paternity, no difficulty in escaping if you chose to do so. You might have thought to yourself, "Gee, I'm really serious about this girl," but your actions did not bind yourself to her. This is precisely why so many couples choose to live together before getting married: it's easier to escape and is sort of a way to test the waters before plunging in.

But hey, I'm an ignorant guy. You and your wife were living together 'in an entirely non-casual way'. So tell me: what formal procedures did you go through? What explicit promises did you and she make? What formal legal, social, religious, or financial bonds existed? What would have happened if you decided to leave? What enforcement mechanism existed to compel you to keep your promises?

I could say that all lawyers are scum, and leave out the "by definition" as well. It just seems ridiculous and small-minded to write off so many people with a blanket statement, whether you couch it as fact or not. And no, I don't believe all lawyers are scum.
It would only be ridiculous and small-minded to call all lawyers scum if you were wrong. If all lawyers are scum, then there's nothing ridiculous or small-minded about it. The only problem with making blanket statements is the possibility of counterexamples.

[BlackPete]

I find it funny that I get slammed for supposedly making irrational emotional and religious arguments, but you can posit an eschatology in which failure to find romantic love kills one's soul.

Not finding love is one thing, it's another thing to be living with someone that you don't love in order to maintain the illusion of a "relationship."

[BlackPete]

I totally agree. I just hate the current system that just assumes that the parents know the correct way to deal with the children and help them cope. That clearly just isn't the case. Most people have no clue how to deal with themselves, let alone children. Just like getting married doesn't magically make you a good parent.

Oh definitely, I absolutely agree -- such people shouldn't have been married in the first place. It certainly sucks when it does happen, and the aftermath is quite messy and there's no easy way out.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely despise people who get married then divorced on a whim as if it's some kind of a game, when the reality is that people can and do get seriously hurt by it. In these cases, there's a deeper problem with these people than divorce itself.

[Bone]

That's a trap. If I give you an answer, then you're going to say, 'If it's inherent, why are you explaining it?'Don't put words in my mouth. I asked earnestly because I want to understand where you're coming from.


But I'll take your bait. You and your wife had two basic options. You could either get married or you could live together without getting married. Why pick one over the other? Marriage involves a ceremony in front of friends and family, a formal (albeit often empty) pledge to each other, a (now largely defunct) promise of lifelong commitment, legal and financial entanglements, mutual liability for debts, authority as next of kin for the other, inheritance rights, and sundry other obligations. You would agree to a presumption of paternity for any children she might bear.

Or you could just live together. No formal annoucement, no legal ties, no financial identity, no authority over each other's medical and other decisions, no presumption of paternity, no difficulty in escaping if you chose to do so. You might have thought to yourself, "Gee, I'm really serious about this girl," but your actions did not bind yourself to her. This is precisely why so many couples choose to live together before getting married: it's easier to escape and is sort of a way to test the waters before plunging in.The choices are not that simple. Marriage is a big decision, and while we were positive we were right for each other, years of high divorce rates told us that as far as special unique snowflakes go, other people probably felt just as sure about it and were wrong. Sure, we were "testing the waters" to some degree, but sometimes that boat was in deep waters of a large storm and we discovered a lot about ourselves and each other by weathering it together. By simply being married, there may have been some expectation that you just "do it" without coming to the realization why we would sacrifice so greatly for each other. In the end, I feel stronger for waiting to get married.


But hey, I'm an ignorant guy. You and your wife were living together 'in an entirely non-casual way'. So tell me: what formal procedures did you go through? What explicit promises did you and she make? What formal legal, social, religious, or financial bonds existed? What would have happened if you decided to leave? What enforcement mechanism existed to compel you to keep your promises?I realize you're used to legal obligations, but our "non casual" agreement consisted of no such things. It was a daily affirmation of our love and dedication to our relationship, and a test of our bonds. I don't believe you have to have a threat of social or legal punishment to keep you in a relationship. The possibility of failure was threat enough to make us work towards (and evaluate) our common goals.


It would only be ridiculous and small-minded to call all lawyers scum if you were wrong. If all lawyers are scum, then there's nothing ridiculous or small-minded about it. The only problem with making blanket statements is the possibility of counterexamples.I've never been to partial to blanket statements just because there is almost always a counterexample. Moreover, I've found that even people with no "inherently" redeeming qualities sometimes change over time.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The choices are not that simple. Marriage is a big decision, and while we were positive we were right for each other, years of high divorce rates told us that as far as special unique snowflakes go, other people probably felt just as sure about it and were wrong. Sure, we were "testing the waters" to some degree, but sometimes that boat was in deep waters of a large storm and we discovered a lot about ourselves and each other by weathering it together. By simply being married, there may have been some expectation that you just "do it" without coming to the realization why we would sacrifice so greatly for each other. In the end, I feel stronger for waiting to get married.

From a cultural standpoint, other than the ceremony, in what way were you NOT married? It sounds like semantics from where I'm sitting. A mutual commitment to a single person including cohabitation - in many societies, that's a marriage.

edit: to make myself clear, I've always been of the opinion that a piece of paper, and the government's opinion, have next to nothing to do with whether I consider someone married. If I were single, I'd consider "marrying" a female friend for tax benefits. I think we're on the same wavelength, though - "It's a big decision" doesn't imply that you're talking about financial entanglement.

[Ox]

Sure, we were "testing the waters" to some degree, but sometimes that boat was in deep waters of a large storm and we discovered a lot about ourselves and each other by weathering it together. By simply being married, there may have been some expectation that you just "do it" without coming to the realization why we would sacrifice so greatly for each other. In the end, I feel stronger for waiting to get married.
I'm not criticizing you for any of that. Nobody ought to get married on the first date. If you thought you and your girlfriend shouldn't rush into marriage, that only indicates how seriously you take the commitment of marriage. Really, I think you made the right decision.

But if you think cohabitation was testing the waters, that must mean you thought you could get out of it a little easier than marriage. Certainly all you wrote indicates this was the prime attraction of cohabitation for you. Which is fine and good if you don't have kids. It's okay to leave your girlfriend. It's not okay to leave your kids. And keeping the door unlocked so you can slip away into the night and away from your kids might be tempting, but kids aren't dumb: they realize that's exactly what the hypothetical cad is doing.

I realize you're used to legal obligations, but our "non casual" agreement consisted of no such things.
Dichotomies:
Tall/short
Rich/poor
Casual/formal

Your relationship was genuine, but it was informal. It was, in a word, casual. That doesn't mean you were necessarily thinking about walking out the door at any second. But let me ask this: if cohabitation was such an idyllic state, why did you get married?

Moreover, I've found that even people with no "inherently" redeeming qualities sometimes change over time.
Okay. I haven't.

From a cultural standpoint, other than the ceremony, in what way were you NOT married? It sounds like semantics from where I'm sitting.
Apart from all the legal and financial stuff? He never said a word about any promises or obligations. They helped each other because they wanted to, not out of a sense of duty.

[zarathstra]

You're right, I was too flippant. Withdrawn.
Ultimately, I'm skeptical of the "ruining marriages" argument. But I think you don't state it fairly. The argument isn't that people will see gays getting married and decide not to marry themselves. Rather, in order to permit gay marriage the concept of marriage has to be changed: it must no longer be a legal recognition of an underlying social compact that each party is covenanted to each other and their offspring, owing mutual duties of care and affection to protect their children. Marriage must be severed from the notion of childcare, and it must be conceived as a contractual bond rather than a holy convenanted one. Which has already happened to a large extent: the liberalization of divorce and the rise of technological reproduction, as well as the destimgatization of illegitimacy (again largely brought about by changes in law) accomplished much of that. And all gay marriage arguments are more-or-less explicitly grounded on the notion that the contractual view of marriage is the only valid one, and any mystical or child-focused view is bigoted and foolish.


Why must marriage be severed from the notion of chidcare in order ot let gay people get married? Lots of gay people adopt children, or use surrogates to have their own, and lots of straight couples get married with no intention (or in some cases, ability) to have children.

And as someone already said, a guy who doesn't marry the woman he gets pregnant isn't necessarily a scum bag. There are other ways to support a child, and marrying someone you may or may not love or get along with is probably not the best situation to raise a child in anyway.

[Bone]

Apart from all the legal and financial stuff? He never said a word about any promises or obligations. They helped each other because they wanted to, not out of a sense of duty.

No, the duty was there, it just didn't have official documentation. From Flying Orc's question, yes, it was a lot like being married. In some ways it made our responsibilities to each other more powerful from a personal (and not legal) responsibility standpoint.

In other words, we learned the ideas of duty and responsibility on our own, as free from cultural and legal pressures as we could be while still living in the world. In actuality, Texas assumes common-law marriage after 6 months cohabitation, but that never entered our minds as proof of our marriage.

[mightbe]

P&R in the lounge? Boo.

[zarathstra]

Apart from all the legal and financial stuff? He never said a word about any promises or obligations. They helped each other because they wanted to, not out of a sense of duty.

Provided that you're married, so you help your wife out solely because you're OBLIGATED or because you love her? As far as I'm concerned, you have a duty to help your loved ones because you love them and they love you, not because of a ceremony.

[Generation ABXY]

P&R in the lounge? Boo.

Yeah, but only since the site opened. Hell, this topic alone started back in November.

[torrefaction]

P&R in the lounge? Boo.

I like how people are shocked about this. It amuses me greatly.

[MagGnome]

I figure you're yanking my chain, but just in case: I'm saying your argument is even worse. Moreover, you don't need that argument. Jettison it.

Of course I was yanking your chain. :)

Thank your for the facts and figures. I actually saw an article on CNN.com today about the rise in births outside of wedlock - I thought that the timing was very appropriate, considering our discussion.

Most (but not all) of the vegetarians and vegans I know follow the diet for ethical reasons. How momentous a change is will be mostly dependent on your perspective...

As a vegetarian/mostly vegan myself I can attest that it was a HUGE change, the effects of which I am still feeling today and will for the rest of my life. I know that some people treat vegetarianism as a fad, but it goes far beyond that for me.


I don't know if you guys realize it, but I shot down the argument myself in the very post you're referring to by saying that it's getting ruined without same-sex marriage. My purpose was to raise and rebut an argument that my roommate brought up, not disagree with you guys.

I understood that you yourself didn't agree with the argument. I was just pointing out that I've seen that argument time and time again, and I find it to be ridiculous.

[Ox]

Why must marriage be severed from the notion of chidcare in order ot let gay people get married?
Second half of this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=226692&postcount=1092) post.

Provided that you're married, so you help your wife out solely because you're OBLIGATED or because you love her? As far as I'm concerned, you have a duty to help your loved ones because you love them and they love you, not because of a ceremony.
I am not, in fact, married (an issue that has caused some changes in my romantic status recently). And there's doesn't necessarily need to be an either/or: I can be obligated to help someone and also love her enough to do it out of the generosity of my heart.

But love, even more than other emotions, is fickle. It fades. Romantic love in particular is a slender reed upon which to construct a lifelong relationship. It's a fair bet you will stop loving your paramour someday, likely quite soon. What is left? Only the promises and covenant you made and the obligations you incurred. Otherwise, marriage is no different than any other set of favors you do someone for whom you temporarily feel some affection, like Obama.

And saying that the obligations of marriage are just the result of a "ceremony" is like saying that the obligations of adoptive parenthood are incurred just because of a "ceremony." Yes, the ceremony is the moment at which those obligations are incurred and celebrated. But it is the moment of time at which you accept the mantle of those obligations, and that's not insignificant at all.

No, the duty was there, it just didn't have official documentation. From Flying Orc's question, yes, it was a lot like being married. In some ways it made our responsibilities to each other more powerful from a personal (and not legal) responsibility standpoint.
So it was basically like being married but better. Why did you get married, then? And if you were so committed to one another, why did you say it was a method of testing the waters? Sounds more like marriage would have been a good way of easing into the solemn significance of cohabitation.

Bone, I'm not trying to criticize and I'm not trying to say you made any bad decisions. But your descriptions of the importance of cohabitation vis a vis marriage are all over the map.

There are other ways to support a child, and marrying someone you may or may not love or get along with is probably not the best situation to raise a child in anyway.
My argument wasn't about financial support. But we should always be extremely suspicious of this sort of argument. Let's face it, most of us have probably had sex with a woman prior to marriage, and therefore most of us have occasionally wondered about the risk of pregnancy. And probably most of us didn't really want to form a lifelong relationship with that woman. Isn't it easy, seductive, to think that marrying her wouldn't be the right thing for the kid? It relieves us of that obligation if we do. It's so tempting to accept this argument. And that's precisely the danger: we always talk ourselves into whatever moral viewpoint coincidentally happens to permit us to do whatever we feel like. I genuinely mean no offense, zarathstra, when I say that arguments like this are exactly why I believe in Satan.

[mister slim]

My understanding is the changing of the purpose for marriage.

Old definition: Get married so I can have kids and raise a family and get the legal benefits.
New definition: Get married cause I love a person/want the legal benefits.


And there's the older definitinon: Purchase a wife so you can start a family and have kids to support you once you get old, because there's no legal benefits.

[mister slim]

EDIT: Torre, note that Panthera sort of stacked the deck a little there. He reached back to the Greeks and Romans and noted that they weren't particularly religious about marriage. Of course, you could argue that our culture isn't purely descended from Greco-Romanism but also includes a substantial fraction of Jewish tradition, where marriage was deeply religious.

I wouldn't really call Jewish marriage deeply religious, as that's more due to the intermingled cultural and religious traditions having the rabbi as leader than religious practices having much to say about marriage. A Jewish marriage is just a contract between man and wife.

[Bone]

So it was basically like being married but better. Why did you get married, then? And if you were so committed to one another, why did you say it was a method of testing the waters? Sounds more like marriage would have been a good way of easing into the solemn significance of cohabitation.I don't know... let's try: we were very young, we both had our share of bad relationships that started out great, we didn't know what being married would be like, or if everything would ominously "change" like people have said to us both in life and popular culture.

We ourselves changed over time. I guess we both started appreciating what a ceremony could mean, what it could add to our lives, and what it would do for our extended families even if we ourselves didn't need the piece of paper.

For me, getting older has included choosing which rituals and ceremonies to perpetuate or reject, and getting married turned out to be a pretty powerful ceremony for us.


Bone, I'm not trying to criticize and I'm not trying to say you made any bad decisions. But your descriptions of the importance of cohabitation vis a vis marriage are all over the map.I didn't realize that what I consider important to me had to follow anyone else's map. Regardless, it's not the importance of cohabitation I'm trying to prove; it's that marriage is not even close to being the only route to familial responsibility.

[Ox]

Regardless, it's not the importance of cohabitation I'm trying to prove; it's that marriage is not even close to being the only route to familial responsibility.
Again, I wonder if I've somehow lost the ability to communicate through writing. I'm not claiming that the ceremony of marriage is necessary to feel responsible for another person. I'm saying that the ceremony of marriage is necessary to demonstrate that feeling.

You love your wife. What would happen if you decided, "I'm not going to say 'I love you' anymore, because I don't need to say the words in order to love her"? I'm sure you'd keep on loving her. And I'm equally sure she'd get awfully insecure about that fact. Part of having a duty isn't just fulfilling that duty, it's making open demonstrations and affirmations of that duty to reassure your loved ones of what you feel in your heart.

If you have kids, they won't be mindreaders. They won't magically know how dedicated you are to them. You can try telling them, but they'll learn soon enough that words can't be trusted either. We have, for the moment, a social institution in which you can demonstrate that dedication by voluntarily accepting a whole lot of formal, enforceable obligations for them. Part of being a parent -- a huge part -- is making major efforts to ensure that your kids know without doubt you will always be there for them. Ignoring one of the most dramatic and significant ways of demonstrating your commitment to your family, just because you aren't bothered by the absence of some stupid ceremony, would be selfish.

You've talked about your anecdotal experience with parents of illegitimate children. Well, I've got anecdotal experience with illegitimate children themselves. Their parents are convinced they've provided a perfect home. But those kids are deeply uncomfortable and insecure about the lack of wedding rings on anybody's hands. And no words or smug self-satisfaction from the parents can wipe that away.

[zarathstra]

Second half of this (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=226692&postcount=1092) post.


I am not, in fact, married (an issue that has caused some changes in my romantic status recently). And there's doesn't necessarily need to be an either/or: I can be obligated to help someone and also love her enough to do it out of the generosity of my heart.

But love, even more than other emotions, is fickle. It fades. Romantic love in particular is a slender reed upon which to construct a lifelong relationship. It's a fair bet you will stop loving your paramour someday, likely quite soon. What is left? Only the promises and covenant you made and the obligations you incurred. Otherwise, marriage is no different than any other set of favors you do someone for whom you temporarily feel some affection, like Obama.

And saying that the obligations of marriage are just the result of a "ceremony" is like saying that the obligations of adoptive parenthood are incurred just because of a "ceremony." Yes, the ceremony is the moment at which those obligations are incurred and celebrated. But it is the moment of time at which you accept the mantle of those obligations, and that's not insignificant at all.


So it was basically like being married but better. Why did you get married, then? And if you were so committed to one another, why did you say it was a method of testing the waters? Sounds more like marriage would have been a good way of easing into the solemn significance of cohabitation.

Bone, I'm not trying to criticize and I'm not trying to say you made any bad decisions. But your descriptions of the importance of cohabitation vis a vis marriage are all over the map.


My argument wasn't about financial support. But we should always be extremely suspicious of this sort of argument. Let's face it, most of us have probably had sex with a woman prior to marriage, and therefore most of us have occasionally wondered about the risk of pregnancy. And probably most of us didn't really want to form a lifelong relationship with that woman. Isn't it easy, seductive, to think that marrying her wouldn't be the right thing for the kid? It relieves us of that obligation if we do. It's so tempting to accept this argument. And that's precisely the danger: we always talk ourselves into whatever moral viewpoint coincidentally happens to permit us to do whatever we feel like. I genuinely mean no offense, zarathstra, when I say that arguments like this are exactly why I believe in Satan.

Satan? If you say so. I'm not really sure how this applies (temptation?) but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. The picture you're painting of marriage is much more dour and colorless than any of the marriages I've experienced throughout my life. I'v enever been married, so I've only ever seen it from the outside, so I could be wrong.

[Banacek]

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html

Finally, someone says what everyone has been thinking!

[TheKeck]

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html

Finally, someone says what everyone has been thinking!
"The page cannot be displayed"? I haven't been thinking that! :p

[Banacek]

"The page cannot be displayed"? I haven't been thinking that! :p

Weird, it works for me.

Contact: Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, 212-870-3210

NEW YORK, April 9 /Christian Newswire/ -- On April 4 the NY Times ran adjacent front-page articles on the Iowa Supreme Court decision legalizing 'gay marriage' and the gunman who murdered 13 people in New York. That day the Times also ran an op ed article by Charles M. Blow who expressed concern about the negative impact that conservative media's "talk of revolution" could have on "weak minds."

Commenting on this is Morality in Media President Bob Peters:

"Having lived in New York City for more than 30 years, I am all too aware of the harm that firearms in the hands of criminals can cause. Having grown up in a small town in Illinois, where citizens owned guns without misusing them, I am also aware that guns aren't the underlying problem. I am not an opponent of gun regulation; I am an opponent of making guns the scapegoat for mass murder.

"The underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a 'post-Christian' society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity taught that murder was wrong and that included murder motivated by anger, hatred and revenge. Both religions also taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and to forgive others.

"For many citizens, what has replaced Judeo-Christian faith and values is the secular value system that is reflected in films, rap/music lyrics, and videogames and on TV and now the Internet, where the taking of human life for just about any reason is commonplace and is often portrayed in an appealing manner and in realistic detail. Murder motivated by hatred and revenge is also justified.

"This secular value system is also reflected in the 'sexual revolution,' which is the driving force behind the push for 'gay marriage;' and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.

"It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.

"I would add that if conservative media's irresponsible talk of revolution can 'poison weak minds,' the liberal entertainment media's irresponsible portrayal of mayhem can also poison weak minds."

[total]

Ignoring one of the most dramatic and significant ways of demonstrating your commitment to your family, just because you aren't bothered by the absence of some stupid ceremony, would be selfish.

So wait, getting married is one of the most dramatic and significant ways of demonstrating your commitment to your family?

[CES]

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/904759988.html

Finally, someone says what everyone has been thinking!

When I start thinking like that, I want someone to ventilate my skull with a shotgun blast.

[total]

When I start thinking like that, I want someone to ventilate my skull with a shotgun blast.

Aha I just finished reading it. Gay Marriage = trafficking in women and children and unwed teenage mothers. I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the onion.

[Banacek]

Aha I just finished reading it. Gay Marriage = trafficking in women and children and unwed teenage mothers. I had to check to make sure I wasn't reading the onion.

I wish it was the Onion.

[Generation ABXY]

I wish it was the Onion.

Huh, and here I thought you were serious before. It must have been your avatar that threw me off.

Personally, I think the "weak minds" argument is bullshit on both sides.

[MagGnome]

Wow, that article is just sad. The whole thing is just one leap of logic after another.

The sexual revolution led to sexual abuse, prostitution, and human trafficking? Really?

None of those things were around before the 1970s of course, in the "good ol' days." :p

[Ox]

Yeah, I hate to see someone take a kernel of an argument and turn it into an idiotic rant.

I mean, the sexual revolution certainly had a lot of effects that were arguably bad. STD transmission probably went up. Third wave feminism ostensibly celebrates all female sexual choices, including choices that often aren't so free like prostitution. You've gotta believe sexual liberation has made stuff like pornography, promiscuity, divorce, etc. more accepted and common. I'm not sure about rape, but the comments made by rapists certainly seem to suggest a certain degree of subjective belief that all women really want forcible sex... and the increased promiscuity certainly makes it harder to disprove consent. But increased pedophilia? I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how that works.

[Banacek]

Huh, and here I thought you were serious before. It must have been your avatar that threw me off.

Personally, I think the "weak minds" argument is bullshit on both sides.

You should read the rest of the thread ;)

[Generation ABXY]

You should read the rest of the thread ;)

I have. I was actually somewhat active in it back when it first started, I just have absolute piss for memory. Now I simply judge books by their covers - you should get a less misleading avatar. :p

[Johan]

Yeah, I hate to see someone take a kernel of an argument and turn it into an idiotic rant.

Then you should probably stop posting on forums, as that is a part of their DNA. :)

[Generation ABXY]

Those of you who know me are probably well aware of my opinions when it comes to homosexuality and gay marriage. For those of you who don't, I'll put it simply: I can acquiesce to something without necessarily approving of it. I try to be very honest and upfront about things, especially when asked, but I also try to avoid offending someone whenever possible. However, at the risk of doing so now, I have to say...I find this (http://www.freep.com/article/20090407/OPINION05/90407048) to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever fucking heard:

I have no doubt that “don’t ask, don’t tell” and same-sex adoption bans will be as unspeakable and inexplicable to my grandchildren as counting a slave as three-fifths of a human being.

What is not so clear to me is whether homosexuals will be adequately compensated for their mistreatment. So while I recognize that other battles remain, I think the time has arrived to place economic reparations for gay and lesbian Americans on the political agenda.

...

The only danger in such a proposal is the possibility that a minority of unscrupulous straight people might claim homosexuality in an effort to defraud taxpayers.

Really? What about the idea of paying reparations to those souls who, despite being gay, never would have even considered joining the Army, adopting a child or marrying (that last one I know I've heard admission of in this very thread)? Should we just make a blanket payment to anyone because, hey, they're gay?

In all honesty, I think a proposal such as this is more likely to win the cause more enemies than it is friends.

[ShivaX]

Thats a pretty stupid idea.

Its not like we all have gay slaves running around doing heavy labor for us. And we sure as hell haven't had them for hundreds of years. Pretty sure we didn't take them from their homeland and force it on them on top of it all.

You could try to make a case comparing it to Japanese internment in WW2, but you'd look like an idiot.

[mister slim]

You should also check out Appel's article on the Abortion Pride Movement.

[Generation ABXY]

Oh, wow, mister slim. I didn't realize he was behind that, too. I've seen that story before, and I have to say I was appalled by it. I mean, what on Earth are you supposed to be celebrating with an abortion pride movement? To the religious, it surely comes off as someone taking pride in having killed another person, and an innocent and defenseless one at that. But, to the non-religious, like myself, it seems that you want people to give you praise for making a completely avoidable mistake (that'd be pregnancy, FYI) and using simple surgery to ignore the gravity and implications of an otherwise life-altering moment. Yeah, kudos to you – there's no way that will ever come back to bite you.

On the other hand, it is nice to know there's a place for the apparently mentally handicapped at the Free Republic.

[National Kato]

Today, Maine Governor John Baldacci has signed into law (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html) a bill legalizing same-sex marriage.

"I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."

But he raised the possibility that the residents of the state would overturn the law, saying, "Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people."Maine joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa in allowing same-sex marriages. Vermont's law goes into effect in September and New Hampshire is close to passing their own law.

On Tuesday, the Washington City Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages from states that allow them. Mayor Fenty is expected to sign the measure. Unless Congress acts, it will become law in 30 days.

Good news all around for proponents of equal rights.

[Ink Asylum]

Great to see more states coming around. The longer states recognize gay marriage and all the doomsday scenarios of the right fall flat the more public opinion will shift.

[Telefrog]

Great to see more states coming around. The longer states recognize gay marriage and all the doomsday scenarios of the right fall flat the more public opinion will shift.

I think the rebuttal will be that all their doomsday predictions did come true. They'll pull out numerous studies (legit or not) showing an increase in divorces, domestic violence cases, erosion of values in schoolchildren, teenage pregnancies, and the general ruination of the country's morals. Their argument will be that the causation is the acceptance of gay marriage.

Wait for it.

[Bone]

I think they would have a hard time arguing that, since that decline has been ongoing for 50+ years.

[Telefrog]

I think they would have a hard time arguing that, since that decline has been ongoing for 50+ years.

They've been arguing it all along. Seriously, this is not a debate that will be won with facts. It's an emotional and faith-based issue. Facts won't convince either side.

[National Kato]

Seriously, this is not a debate that will be won with facts.

Well, unless you argue the fact that equal rights should be enjoyed by all U.S. citizens. :) Maine's Governor says as much in his comments.

[Bone]

They've been arguing it all along. Seriously, this is not a debate that will be won with facts. It's an emotional and faith-based issue. Facts won't convince either side.Well sure, people who want to ignore facts and history can be as ignorant as they want. Homosexuality has been around since pre-history and is even observed in animals. I guess to prove its contribution to the decline of civilization you'd really have to go back to the gay dinosaurs with their insistence on going vegetarian.

Yeah. So I was listening to NPR at lunch, and they were interviewing a lawyer who was responsible for this victory in Maine. She described the argument as: churches are free to exclude whomever they want in a religious ceremony. Her tactic was to highlight the separation of church and state and focus on the state's signing of marriage certificates. So someone who is against same-sex marriage can still choose to attend a (bigoted, in my opinion) church that doesn't recognize such unions.

[Johan]

So someone who is against same-sex marriage can still choose to attend a (bigoted, in my opinion) church that doesn't recognize such unions.

You mean someone like Obama? Or Bill Clinton (DOMA)?

[National Kato]

You mean someone like Obama? Or Bill Clinton (DOMA)?

Absolutely. I think you'll find, as more and more states come to their senses, that churches will begin recognizing same-sex marriages in order to stay inclusive to their parish. Chruches are constantly trying to stay relevant, especially the larger ones that attempt to serve a community made up of young and old alike.

[Ox]

Absolutely. I think you'll find, as more and more states come to their senses, that churches will begin recognizing same-sex marriages in order to stay inclusive to their parish. Chruches are constantly trying to stay relevant, especially the larger ones that attempt to serve a community made up of young and old alike.
Which is why the largest religious sect in America doesn't even ordain women. Sorry, Bone, the largest bigoted religious sect.

EDIT: Let me be clear: I agree that many churches will recognize same-sex marriages, especially mainline Protestant ones. There are churches that follow Kato's model. They also happen to be the churches which are dying fastest. The most successful churches are culturally informal, but doctrinally rather strict. Just because the pastor wears a T-shirt and there's a drum set in the corner doesn't mean it's socially liberal.

[National Kato]

Which is why the largest religious sect in America doesn't even ordain women.

The wheels of progress turn slowly, Ox. It may not be something we see in our time, but I can assure you - much as has happened with race - the church community will have to adapt in some ways to stay relevant. I'm not saying that way will be same-sex marriage, but it might be.

A local Catholic church here in Jacksonville used to have anti-rock music services when I was in highschool (late 80s). Now they have Rock Band nights in order to get more kids and young teens into the church. Rock may not be as big a stick in their craw as homosexuality, but I remember how strongly a lot of churches felt about rock and roll nearly half a century ago.

[Johan]

I think I understand now. It's bigotry if you are honest and candid in your opposition to gay marriage, but if you sign a bill into law that restricts federal benefits to male-female unions (Clinton), or state that the matter should be left to the states and you oppose gay marriage at the federal level (Obama), you're...

you're...

you're...

you're what now?

I see, too, that now that the Democrats control Congress and the White House completely, gay marriage will...

will...

will...

will what now?

[National Kato]

It's bigotry if you are honest and candid in your opposition to gay marriage, but if you sign a bill into law...

I'm not sure where your confusion lies, Johan. It's bigotry either way. As for the 'gay marriage will...will..' comment, I'm not sure what you're asking. Gay marriage will...um, be signed into law by more and more states as time progresses? Did I get it right? <shrug>

[Ox]

The wheels of progress turn slowly, Ox. It may not be something we see in our time, but I can assure you - much as has happened with race - the church community will have to adapt in some ways to stay relevant. I'm not saying that way will be same-sex marriage, but it might be.
Why are you bringing race into this as if it supports your point? The most segregated hour of the week in American life is on Sunday morning.

[Johan]

I'm not sure where your confusion lies, Johan. It's bigotry either way.

Many of those who casually throw the term about do not consider their own hypocrisy in avoiding the term when discussing people and political parties they are otherwise enamored of.

Obama doesn't currently support gay marriage. He wants to leave it to the states, to allow or disallow it.
Clinton signed DOMA into law. That's not only a lack of support, but direct opposition.
The Democrats currently control the White House and the Congress. Where's gay marriage legislation?

For many here, it's obvious that it's only bigotry if you're a conservative or a Republican. If you're a liberal or a Democrat, it's...it's...it's...

what now? Hypocrisy.

If you're going to call someone a bigot for not supporting gay marriage, whomever you may be, you should at least be intellectually consistent. If you voted for Bill Clinton or Obama, you voted against gay marriage (the former), and voted neutrally at best (the latter).

70% of African-Americans in California opposed gay marriage. Are they bigots?
Multiple states have constitutional amendments declaring marriage between one man and one woman. Are they bigots?

The schizophrenia is amusing, to say the least.

Why are you bringing race into this as if it supports your point? The most segregated hour of the week in American life is on Sunday morning.

This is statistically and empirically a fact.

[Telefrog]

Well sure, people who want to ignore facts and history can be as ignorant as they want. Homosexuality has been around since pre-history and is even observed in animals. I guess to prove its contribution to the decline of civilization you'd really have to go back to the gay dinosaurs with their insistence on going vegetarian.

If animals do it, or it's happened in history, then it should be sanctioned as okay by the government? I think your going to find that argument a futile one for legislation. There's a lot of things that meet those criteria that we have decided is not okay to do. Cannibalism. Polygamy. Murder. The list goes on.

Look, you and I know the political arguments for and against gay marriage. You and I also know that depending on which side of the debate you fall, just about any "facts" can be brought up to shore up whichever argument you want. When it comes down to it, both sides are arguing from purely emotional stances.

One side says that gay marriage is okay because the people that want to get married love each other and that love is just as good and valid as your love or mine regardless of sexual preference. The other side says that gay marriage is wrong because being gay is an aberration and not the natural state of sexuality. Approving that aberration will undermine American religion, families, and morality.

That's simply it. Disregard all the arguments about constitutional equality, state's rights, and intolerance. It's window dressing. The core arguments on both sides are emotional ones. There aren't any facts to argue because gay marriage approval by a national government has no precedent. It's all conjecture on both sides.

[National Kato]

Many of those who casually throw the term about do not consider their own hypocrisy in avoiding the term when discussing people and political parties they are otherwise enamored of.

Well, I can't speak for others on this forum, if that's where you're directing your spotlight, but a bigot is a bigot. I don't really care if it's Obama, Clinton, Bush, or Santa Claus.

Why are you bringing race into this as if it supports your point? The most segregated hour of the week in American life is on Sunday morning.

I was referring to the dialogue happening (http://erlc.com/article/recent-election-spurs-race-relations-in-church/) in some Southern Baptist churches regarding race. As I said, the wheel turns slowly, but some might say the recent election of a black man to the highest office is spurring this discussion where once there was none. Others may believe it's more a natural progression in our national dialogue.

Calvin Kelly, pastor of the predominantly white Valleydale Baptist Church, Birmingham, said because race was a common thread in the presidential campaign, it provided him a platform to talk about it in the pulpit. “I felt like the historic nature of President Obama’s election warranted bringing the race issue out from kind of a not-spoken-about issue to an issue we did speak about … . I wanted to help believers understand from a biblical perspective God’s view of race relations and prejudices,” he said.

“I don’t think I would have preached that message had Obama not been elected,” Kelly said. “I think Christians need to talk about the fact that we probably all struggle in that area whether white or black, and we need to understand what the Bible says about the intrinsic value of every human being as being made in the image of God. When we truly understand and embrace that Jesus is for all nations, nationalities, skin types and people groups, then we’ve gotten somewhere. We can’t faithfully take the gospel to people we don’t like.”There's still a lot of work to be done, naturally.

[Johan]

Well, I can't speak for others on this forum, if that's where you're directing your spotlight, but a bigot is a bigot. I don't really care if it's Obama, Clinton, Bush, or Santa Claus.

I find it bigoted to support gay marriage but deny polygamists equal marital rights.

[National Kato]

I find it bigoted to support gay marriage but deny polygamists equal marital rights.

Well, that sounds like a strong stance you can really get behind, Johan. I'm sure if you get your message out, you'll find supporters and perhaps a means to get that message to a much larger audience. Good luck with that.

[no plum intended]

[Ox]

I was referring to the dialogue happening (http://erlc.com/article/recent-election-spurs-race-relations-in-church/) in some Southern Baptist churches regarding race. As I said, the wheel turns slowly, but some might say the recent election of a black man to the highest office is spurring this discussion where once there was none. Others may believe it's more a natural progression in our national dialogue.
How does that support your point? Did Pastor Kelly previously preach vitriolic race hatred from the pulpit?

Obviously, churches tend to preach that we should be better people. For most churches, that does -- and has for a surprisingly long time -- mean preaching more racial tolerance. I mean, Bartolomew de la Casas was preaching the equality of all races when he was rolling with Cortez. And yet people still don't generally attend mixed-race services.

If you can find an example of a church that has turned its back on a moral teaching because of changing attitudes, that may be one thing. But race fails all the elements of this test. The most recent example I can think of is how the Catholic church no longer encourages the peasantry to accept their natural place in the social hierarchy. If you think same-sex marriage is going to rise to the level of the decline of feudalism in terms of reshaping our most fundamental social compacts and theological beliefs, fine. Personally, I rate it slightly lower on the epochal shifts.

[Johan]

Well, that sounds like a strong stance you can really get behind, Johan.

You must not be married. More than one wife isn't a "right." It's a...uh...a...um... :D

However, my point still stands. People who don't support rights you want, whoever 'you' may be, are bigoted. People who want rights you don't care about or don't support are radical or wrong.

Obviously, churches tend to preach that we should be better people. For most churches, that does -- and has for a surprisingly long time -- mean preaching more racial tolerance.

Slavery ended in England because of Christians. In America, too many Christians excused it, but not all did so.

[National Kato]

You must not be married. More than one wife isn't a "right." It's a...uh...a...um... :D

Hey, it wasn't me bringing up polygamous relationships. That was you.

However, my point still stands. People who don't support rights you want, whoever 'you' may be, are bigoted. People who want rights you don't care about or don't support are radical or wrong.

Have you been called a bigot previously? Did it sting? I mean, I don't know how else to state what I've stated twice now. The word has been around for centuries. If you think it's being used inconsistently, then I guess that's something. But when you use Obama or Clinton to challenge the same-sex issue, I'm not really sure who you're talking to. I think we can agree a bigot is a bigot, yes?

[Johan]

Have you been called a bigot previously? Did it sting?

It doesn't sting at all when people use it selectively when describing the same behavior. In that case, it amuses and enlightens.

Also, little to nothing stings me on the Internet, because I don't care. Sorry if that offends, but if it does, it shouldn't.

[Banacek]

Have you been called a bigot previously? Did it sting? I mean, I don't know how else to state what I've stated twice now. The word has been around for centuries. If you think it's being used inconsistently, then I guess that's something. But when you use Obama or Clinton to challenge the same-sex issue, I'm not really sure who you're talking to. I think we can agree a bigot is a bigot, yes?

Johan just wants to live in a world where he can hate a group of people and not be a bigot. He'll justify this position by any means at his disposal. You're wasting your time trying to convince him otherwise.

[Johan]

Johan just wants to live in a world where he can hate a group of people and not be a bigot. He'll justify this position by any means at his disposal. You're wasting your time trying to convince him otherwise.

I enjoy the irony of watching people support supposedly universal rights selectively, and wielding hateful terms in the process. I also enjoy people wielding hatred while trying to supposedly expose it in others. Delicious.

And, like clockwork...your post! :D

[National Kato]

Also, little to nothing stings me on the Internet, because I don't care. Sorry if that offends, but if it does, it shouldn't.

I know you frequently say you don't care, but sometimes it seems like you do, and I can't help but think I'm not alone in noticing. I'm being honest here, not trying to rile you. Either way, I think it's a fine idea to let stuff roll off your back.

[Johan]

I'm being honest here, not trying to rile you.

Candor is a nice character quality, and very rare. Thank you.

I think this issue is finally being decided where it should be decided, which is through the legislatures and referendums of state populations. It'll sort itself out as time goes on. Of course, if the Democratic Party didn't have so many bigots (apparently, that's the term, right?) then it could sort itself out right now, nationally, through federal legislation.

[Deadend]

Johnan, why do you hate the idea of a man marrying his true love? Even if it's another man?

As yes, it's hate, it's dumb and close minded because it's not going to affect you. Unless you are going to run off to elope with some dude.

[Johan]

Johan, why do you hate the idea of a man marrying his true love? Even if it's another man?

I'll take my cue from President Obama. It should be settled at the state level. Does he hate the idea? Ask him. I'm with him and the Democrats in Congress on this one.

If you think he hates gay marriage, then find out why...

[Deadend]

I'll take my cue from President Obama. It should be settled at the state level. Does he hate the idea? Ask him. I'm with him and the Democrats in Congress on this one.

If you think he hates gay marriage, then find out why...

say what?

Oh, you think that just because I voted for Obama I think he is right on everything? He is dumb on it and if he is against it, he is wrong. If he isn't saying anything it's because he needs the novtes and support still of people who can't stand living in a world where a man and another man can get married.

You are going to sit there and say that it should be illegal for 2 people to be married even though both are over 18 just because of gender? that is gender discrimination right there.

[Banacek]

I enjoy the irony of watching people support supposedly universal rights selectively, and wielding hateful terms in the process. I also enjoy people wielding hatred while trying to supposedly expose it in others. Delicious.

And, like clockwork...your post! :D

I have learned from the master. You have been an excellent teacher :p

[BlackPete]

Oh, you think that just because I voted for Obama I think he is right on everything? He is dumb on it and if he is against it, he is wrong.

Not to go off topic, but I wanted to applaud your non-partisan stance on this issue.

[Telefrog]

Johnan, why do you hate the idea of a man marrying his true love? Even if it's another man?

As yes, it's hate, it's dumb and close minded because it's not going to affect you. Unless you are going to run off to elope with some dude.

See, the argument for most folks against gay marriage is that it does impact them because it undermines family values, religion, state's rights, and encourages the erosion of basic societal morals.

I don't agree, but that's the argument.

[Bone]

Which is why the largest religious sect in America doesn't even ordain women. Sorry, Bone, the largest bigoted religious sect.Note that I prefaced mine with "in my opinion". You don't have to facetiously pretend to agree- but you're welcome to be an ass if that's where your own opinion leads you.

[Bone]

If animals do it, or it's happened in history, then it should be sanctioned as okay by the government? I think your going to find that argument a futile one for legislation. There's a lot of things that meet those criteria that we have decided is not okay to do. Cannibalism. Polygamy. Murder. The list goes on.I was responding directly to your comment about the decline of civilization. For anyone to claim that homosexuality led to that, I was saying they'd have to take it into pre-history. Clearly civilization and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive, and straight people have helped civilization decline just fine, thanks! I'm a contributor myself.

[Telefrog]

I was responding directly to your comment about the decline of civilization. For anyone to claim that homosexuality led to that, I was saying they'd have to take it into pre-history. Clearly civilization and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive, and straight people have helped civilization decline just fine, thanks! I'm a contributor myself.

That's fine and dandy. I was pointing out that logical arguments will never, ever win the day in this debate. They just won't.

[Kelegacy]

Well, unless you argue the fact that equal rights should be enjoyed by all U.S. citizens. :) Maine's Governor says as much in his comments.

I'm proud to be from Maine, and proud to be a New Englander! I'm so glad this got passed. Live and Let Live is our motto (well, not technically) and I think more people should abide by it.

I didn't think Baldacci would sign it so fast, but he did. I had a feeling he'd sign it EVENTUALLY, though he said originally he didn't support gay marriage. You have to buck up sometimes.

However, now I can't get married to my girlfriend because gay marriage makes traditional marriage less sacred and worthwhile. Oh well.... ;)

[Kelegacy]

I find it bigoted to support gay marriage but deny polygamists equal marital rights.

I'm open to anything. If a woman is fool enough to marry a man with another wife, or multiple wives, then so be it. And vice versa. It would get people riled up about tax laws and all that, but I don't care. Live and let live. As long as it doesn't hurt other people, I don't see a problem with pretty much anything.

I think marriage should be defined as a consentual union between two adults (or more if you want to bring polygamy into it). The foolish arguments about gay marriage rights leading to beastiality and pedophilia are incredibly ignorant. But defining marriage as a consentual act regardless of sex, color, orientation or creed would be fine by me. That would mean no animals or kids, since they cannot grant consent by law.

[National Kato]

Agreed on all points, Kelegacy.

You should feel great about your state this week. In case you missed it, you can watch/listen to Gov. Baldacci's reasoning on signing this bill here. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/27938)

[Ink Asylum]

Keeping my fingers crossed that NY will be the next state to follow the growing North East trend. I would be thrilled beyond words to be the best man at my brother's wedding to his boyfriend of 10 years, in the state we were born and grew up in.

[Banacek]

I'm open to anything. If a woman is fool enough to marry a man with another wife, or multiple wives, then so be it. And vice versa. It would get people riled up about tax laws and all that, but I don't care. Live and let live. As long as it doesn't hurt other people, I don't see a problem with pretty much anything.

I think marriage should be defined as a consentual union between two adults (or more if you want to bring polygamy into it). The foolish arguments about gay marriage rights leading to beastiality and pedophilia are incredibly ignorant. But defining marriage as a consentual act regardless of sex, color, orientation or creed would be fine by me. That would mean no animals or kids, since they cannot grant consent by law.

This is how I feel as well. If you're stupid enough to want to try polygamy, then by all means, go for it :D

[Kelegacy]

Keeping my fingers crossed that NY will be the next state to follow the growing North East trend. I would be thrilled beyond words to be the best man at my brother's wedding to his boyfriend of 10 years, in the state we were born and grew up in.

That would be truly heartwarming, I agree.

I just watched Milk this past weekend for the first time and I loved it. It dawned on me how much the real footage showed opponents as out of touch (at least now). It's almost laughable. In 10 years or more our kids will look back and laugh at how modern opponents were so out of touch as well. It's like viewing a videotape of Strom Thurmond during an anti-civil rights filibuster.

Things are going to change and people will have to get used to it.

[Ink Asylum]

Carrie Prejean sure seems like she's trying to become this generation's Anita Bryant.

[Kelegacy]

Carrie Prejean sure seems like she's trying to become this generation's Anita Bryant.

Nothing like being a good, neighbor-loving Christian and fighting the good fight. :)

[Johan]

You are going to sit there and say that it should be illegal for 2 people to be married even though both are over 18 just because of gender?

No, I'm not. I'll leave that to the Democratic majority in Congress and President Obama. They're doing a fine job of it on their own! :p

President Obama is a fine leader. I trust his judgment and will follow his lead in this matter. Don't be a hater! Give him a chance!

[Kelegacy]

No, I'm not. I'll leave that to the Democratic majority in Congress and President Obama. They're doing a fine job of it on their own! :p

President Obama is a fine leader. I trust his judgment and will follow his lead in this matter. Don't be a hater! Give him a chance!

I agree that the government and courts should step in and just make it legal in every damn state, if they can, and chalk it up to another victory for civil rights. I think it's still so hot an issue that not too many people want to put it on their agenda. You know, reelection can be a bitch.

If we had just left civil rights to a vote state by state like we're doing with gay marriage, there might still probably be some states where blacks and other minorities aren't completely equal.

The ironic thing is that African Americans are a large demographic against gay marriage. I call it irony. And sad.

[Johan]

I agree that the government and courts should step in and just make it legal in every damn state, if they can, and chalk it up to another victory for civil rights.

I don't think the courts should decide this one. I'm actually very happy to see state legislatures and referendums taking place.

Besides, for advocates of gay marriage, if the younger generation is truly 'different' and more 'tolerant' then time is on their side in that respect. Right?

[National Kato]

Besides, for advocates of gay marriage, if the younger generation is truly 'different' and more 'tolerant' then time is on their side in that respect. Right?

How long would you be willing to wait for the right to marry your wife? 20 or 50 years? Less?

[johnperkins21]

I don't think the courts should decide this one. I'm actually very happy to see state legislatures and referendums taking place.

Besides, for advocates of gay marriage, if the younger generation is truly 'different' and more 'tolerant' then time is on their side in that respect. Right?

The courts should decide this one. Falls under the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. It's unconstitutional to disallow gays to marry. Simple as that. I really don't see why Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply.

And yes, anyone and everyone who is "against" gay marriage, including Clinton and Obama, are bigots. Yes I voted for a bigot during this election mainly because I was afraid of who McCain and Palin would appoint to the Supreme Court.

[ShivaX]

The courts should decide this one. Falls under the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. It's unconstitutional to disallow gays to marry. Simple as that. I really don't see why Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply.

And yes, anyone and everyone who is "against" gay marriage, including Clinton and Obama, are bigots. Yes I voted for a bigot during this election mainly because I was afraid of who McCain and Palin would appoint to the Supreme Court.

I don't think that they are bigots persay. I think they're politicians and its not politically viable to overtly support gay marriage. Theres a difference there. They support equal rights for gay couples, which is more or less political code for gay marriage support.

[National Kato]

I don't think that they are bigots persay. I think they're politicians and its not politically viable to overtly support gay marriage. Theres a difference there. They support equal rights for gay couples, which is more or less political code for gay marriage support.

We can call them cowards, though. Right? :D

[ShivaX]

We can call them cowards, though. Right? :D

You can if you want. I think they're supportive as much as they can be and honestly just want gays to have equal rights. Saying you support "gay marriage" is one way of doing it. Another is a scenario where the government gives everyone, gay or straight, a "civil union" that has all the rights that marriage currently does and leaves marriage as a religious ceremony outside of government involvement.

In either scenario you have the desired end - equal rights. Its really more a matter of semantics than anything, but then again most of the whole gay marriage issue is semantics.

[Kelegacy]

I don't think the courts should decide this one. I'm actually very happy to see state legislatures and referendums taking place.

Besides, for advocates of gay marriage, if the younger generation is truly 'different' and more 'tolerant' then time is on their side in that respect. Right?

I know it was barbed sarcasm, but on one hand you comment on how the President and government are partially to blame for two adults not being able to marry, but you also don't want the issue to be a blanket, nationwide decision.

I'm fine with states deciding this, but since gay marriage doesn't affect me (and it doesn't affect other straight couples contrary to their beliefs) I don't see a problem with allowing them to marry. When I was young and ignorant I had a different viewpoint on it (I'm originally from "the sticks", you see) but as I matured I realized it's best to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

And I'd like to get married someday soon, preferably this year--to my great girlfriend--and would hate to see groups of people striving to ban me from doing so. That's why I support gay marriage.

[ShivaX]

When I was young and ignorant I had a different viewpoint on it (I'm originally from "the sticks", you see) but as I matured I realized it's best to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.


My views on gays were mostly formed by Gay Pride parades until I actually met some through an ex-gf (and realized that some people I'd known for years were actually gay). Once you realize they're not all leather daddies that just want to fuck anything that moves and that they're just like anyone else it changes how you view things.

I think the whole Gay Pride thing has possibly done more damage to the movement than anything. Then again if they "kept it in the closet" its possible nothing would ever have been done about it. I still think giant penis floats, assless chaps in public and the rest of the more extreme shit is a bigger negative than anything.

[Banacek]

I don't think that they are bigots persay. I think they're politicians and its not politically viable to overtly support gay marriage. Theres a difference there. They support equal rights for gay couples, which is more or less political code for gay marriage support.

They are either one of two things: 1) bigots or 2) liars who say whatever they need to so that they get elected. Which one is worse?

[National Kato]

I still think giant penis floats, assless chaps in public and the rest of the more extreme shit is a bigger negative than anything.

I feel the same way about Mardi Gras. For those exact reasons. :D

[ShivaX]

They are either one of two things: 1) bigots or 2) liars who say whatever they need to so that they get elected. Which one is worse?

3) People who live in the real world.

And all politicians are liars to some extent. They support equal rights for gays. Why is that not enough? They've come out and said it. Maybe they don't think "gay marriage" is the way to do it. Maybe they support a civil union solution. Hell thats basically what they said they supported. So unless you're suggesting that the civil union scenario is bigotted your argument fails.

Mind you if you think the civil union solution (ie marriage = religion, civil union = government) is bigotted then you're basically calling me a bigot because thats always been my solution. And if I'm a bigot than fucking everyone is and using the word is meaningless.

Its like calling Bush a Nazi or saying Obama is a tyrant. It makes you look like a fucking moron because the distance between our petty bullshit and the reality of what those words actually mean is so huge most living people can't even fathom it.

[Ox]

The courts should decide this one. Falls under the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. It's unconstitutional to disallow gays to marry. Simple as that. I really don't see why Loving v. Virginia doesn't apply.
Because race is a suspect class, but sexual orientation is not. Boom.

[ShivaX]

Because race is a suspect class, but sexual orientation is not. Boom.

I don't see how it isn't. Then again people are still arguing that people "choose" to be gay, so...

[Kelegacy]

My views on gays were mostly formed by Gay Pride parades until I actually met some through an ex-gf (and realized that some people I'd known for years were actually gay). Once you realize they're not all leather daddies that just want to fuck anything that moves and that they're just like anyone else it changes how you view things.

I think the whole Gay Pride thing has possibly done more damage to the movement than anything. Then again if they "kept it in the closet" its possible nothing would ever have been done about it. I still think giant penis floats, assless chaps in public and the rest of the more extreme shit is a bigger negative than anything.

Yeah, it can feel really strange, as a heterosexual, seeing those types of images. But as National Kato said, we heterosexuals have our own displays of sexuality. Even our beer commercials can be smutty. It's more of a tolerance thing, for both sides. We're humans and we love sex. If they should keep it hidden, then so should we. But I'd rather not, so I don't care, even if sometimes it's uncomfortable for people. :)

I'd love to see a gay beer commercial. Anyone remember the Saturday Night Live beer "commercial" with Adam Sandler and Chris Farley? Schmidts Gay or something? Hilarious.

[Ox]

I don't see how it isn't. Then again people are still arguing that people "choose" to be gay, so...
It isn't because only certain categories of classification are suspect. Race is one. Gender, legitimacy, and disability are not suspect classes. Obviously, you can't change those traits (well, maybe gender). On the other hand, religion -- which you certainly can change -- is a suspect class.

There isn't really a great standard for determining whether a class is or is not a suspect class. It's more historical than anything. The 14th Amendment was written to protect religions and races. It wasn't written to protect women, gays, or cripples. So it doesn't provide identical coverage to those groups. Don't make the mistake of thinking the law says what you think it ought to say.

[DoctorFinger]

Gays can marry right now in every state, they just can't marry one another.

[Ox]

Yeah, it can feel really strange, as a heterosexual, seeing those types of images. But as National Kato said, we heterosexuals have our own displays of sexuality.
Sure. And when you see a bunch of heterosexual women riding a giant penis float down Main Street for a Straight Pride parade, you give me a call. That sounds like my kind of scene.

[ShivaX]

Yeah, it can feel really strange, as a heterosexual, seeing those types of images. But as National Kato said, we heterosexuals have our own displays of sexuality. Even our beer commercials can be smutty. It's more of a tolerance thing, for both sides. We're humans and we love sex. If they should keep it hidden, then so should we. But I'd rather not, so I don't care, even if sometimes it's uncomfortable for people. :)
True, but so far I haven't seen any beer commericals with a dude simulating penetration or anyone going down on each other or anything. I mean when it comes to straight sex people regularly wig the fuck out over things in ads.

I'd love to see a gay beer commercial. Anyone remember the Saturday Night Live beer "commercial" with Adam Sandler and Chris Farley? Schmidts Gay or something? Hilarious.

That was awesome. And somehow Youtube doesn't have it, which just seems like a failure of epic proportions. I'm blaming a "Best of Chris Farley" DVD or the like.

[National Kato]

Schmidts Gay

Schmitt's Gay, indeed. (http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=31956578) :p

[National Kato]

Sure. And when you see a bunch of heterosexual women riding a giant penis float down Main Street for a Straight Pride parade, you give me a call. That sounds like my kind of scene.

Was it you, Ox, who made a comment about the lack of diversity in your local hockey arenas? Now you say you've not seen giant penis floats or other displays of heterosexual pride? I'm not sure where you spend your time, but it sure ain't Mardi Gras, Pensacola Beach, Cancun or Daytona during Spring Break.

You might want to get out more and enjoy the 'scene.' :)

[ShivaX]

Don't make the mistake of thinking the law says what you think it ought to say.

Fair enough. But I'll still foolishly challenge your actual knowledge with my internet knowledge! :)

What about intermediate scrutiny?

[Ox]

Was it you, Ox, who made a comment about the lack of diversity in your local hockey arenas? Now you say you've not seen giant penis floats or other displays of heterosexual pride? I'm not sure where you spend your time, but it sure ain't Mardi Gras, Pensacola Beach, Cancun or Daytona during Spring Break.
A decade ago, I did go to Cancun for Spring Break. But in my defense, I was way too hammered to have any clear recollection of it.

What about intermediate scrutiny?
Intermediate scrutiny is for stuff where the Court doesn't want to give a carte blanche, but it doesn't feel like having unisex bathrooms.

Look, let's call a spade a spade: there's no real rhyme or reason to who gets what level of Equal Protection Clause protection. The Court has spelled out a test -- immutability, powerlessness, history of discrimination, and insularity -- but cripples flunk it while the Catholic Church passes. I'm fairly certain that test is there purely for comedy value. Intermediate scrutiny is even more of a dog's breakfast. There are plenty of good arguments for gay marriage, and I wish people would stop harping on one of the dumbest ones.

[ShivaX]

Intermediate scrutiny is even more of a dog's breakfast. There are plenty of good arguments for gay marriage, and I wish people would stop harping on one of the dumbest ones.

I only went that route since the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously did. Then again I didn't really look up the wording of the Iowa Constitution either. I would think they'd have had at least one dissent on it if it was a legal grey area, its not like Iowa is left-wing or anything.

Edit: Looking over the Iowa Constitution I'm betting this was a big factor:


This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others, retained by the people.
Then again my legalese is shitty, so maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Re-edit:
Oh and probably, this especially:

All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.

[Ink Asylum]

Giant penis parade, you say?

http://ddiekman.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/phallus.jpg

Granted, it's Japan, but it's a fertility parade, so clearly very straight.

Edit: Turned into a link because it's a giant penis float. Probably NSFW.

[National Kato]

A decade ago, I did go to Cancun for Spring Break. But in my defense, I was way too hammered to have any clear recollection of it.

Hmm...perhaps there's a picture of a young, drunken Ox riding an inflatable penis out there somewhere...?

[National Kato]

Granted, it's Japan, but it's a fertility parade, so clearly very straight.


I was able to witness that festival firsthand in Ninohe, Japan, several years ago. The most uncomfortable part? After they carry the phallus up the mountain, little girls throw flower wreaths onto the head. When I say 'little' I do not just mean diminutive. I mean, like, six years of age.

Of course, we're talking about Japan here, so...

[Ink Asylum]

I was able to witness that festival firsthand in Ninohe, Japan, several years ago. The most uncomfortable part? After they carry the phallus up the mountain, little girls throw flower wreaths onto the head. When I say 'little' I do not just mean diminutive. I mean, like, six years of age.

Of course, we're talking about Japan here, so...

Not to potentially start a shitstorm on the topic, but so what, I say. It's a penis. Half the population has them and can look at their own when their six years old, but girls throwing wreaths onto a giant fake one is uncomfortable?

[National Kato]

Half the population has them and can look at their own when their six years old, but girls throwing wreaths onto a giant fake one is uncomfortable?

I just found it uncomfortable considering some of the things the Japanese find acceptable. Hours earlier I had seen a couple of men reading rape manga on the train depicting schoolgirls. I mean, I understand your point and I am well aware of Japan's culture, but I found it a bit unnecessary. Six-year olds aren't really needing fertility blessings, are they? Understand I say this as someone who views the puritanical environment a bit ridiculous here in America, nevermind abroad.

[Ox]

I only went that route since the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously did. Then again I didn't really look up the wording of the Iowa Constitution either. I would think they'd have had at least one dissent on it if it was a legal grey area, its not like Iowa is left-wing or anything.
Iowa voters may not be solidly left-wing. But a state supreme court is rarely a typical cross-section of the electorate.
Then again my legalese is shitty, so maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Your legalese is excellent.

[Banacek]

3) People who live in the real world.

And all politicians are liars to some extent. They support equal rights for gays. Why is that not enough? They've come out and said it. Maybe they don't think "gay marriage" is the way to do it. Maybe they support a civil union solution. Hell thats basically what they said they supported. So unless you're suggesting that the civil union scenario is bigotted your argument fails.


No, if the person is honest and truly looking for a solution without being close-minded then they are not bigots (or liars). But see, why do we just accept the fact that politicians lie a bit? I say we need to call them on it.

[Johan]

Politicians who secretly support gay marriage but publicly oppose it aren't bigots?

The definition of bigotry gets more and more convoluted every day. It's fascinating. I had figured the party in control of Congress and the White House must be bigoted not to support gay marriage through legislation legalizing it, but it turns out it's not 'their' bigotry, it's those who don't have any power to change the law or legislate, those outside of government, who are bigoted.

I got it now! Thanks! It won't change again, will it? The definition, I mean...

[Banacek]

Politicians who secretly support gay marriage but publicly oppose it aren't bigots?

It's a shame you can't read. I would have thought that was a requirement for a teacher.

[Voodoo]

It's a shame you can't read. I would have thought that was a requirement for a teacher.

You have earned a warning. Congratulations.

[Johan]

I wonder why it's not bigotry to deny polygamists the same right?

So many questions...I'm confused by that. It seems to fit the reasoning behind extending the right for gays to marry. :confused:

[Banacek]

You have earned a warning. Congratulations.

Ah, I deserved it for that one. Message received.

[Banacek]

I wonder why it's not bigotry to deny polygamists the same right?

So many questions...I'm confused by that. It seems to fit the reasoning behind extending the right for gays to marry. :confused:

Well, there's two ways to look at it:

1) You're against polygamy but support gay marriage. In this case all parties that are involved are consensual adults, so yes, you'd be the same as someone who doesn't want to allow gay marriage. A 'denier of human rights', as it were.
2) You support both. You don't care how many parties are involved, people should be allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't actively hurt another person.

I'm in group #2. Does that help clear the air?

[johnperkins21]

I wonder why it's not bigotry to deny polygamists the same right?

So many questions...I'm confused by that. It seems to fit the reasoning behind extending the right for gays to marry. :confused:

It is. By definition intolerance of people with other views or lifestyles is bigotry. I'd say not giving them equal rights is intolerance. Ergo, bigots.

[Johan]

If so, then 92% (according to Gallup) of the nation is bigoted, as that is the percentage that opposes polygamy.

I wonder how many gay people are in that 92% of bigots? I wonder if they recognize the irony? I wonder if African-Americans in California recognize the irony? I wonder if some people on the boards here recognize it?

:confused:

[Ox]

It is. By definition intolerance of people with other views or lifestyles is bigotry.
That's not exactly a universal definition. We here all presumably don't tolerate all sorts of views -- insert Godwin's Law here -- but I doubt most of us think of ourselves as bigots. Or, more to the point, if "bigotry" simply means that there are some views you believe are unacceptable, then "bigot" is no longer an insulting title.

I mean, heck. Banacek just got warned for a post. Does that mean Voodoo is a bigot? Not in any negative sense of the word. Perhaps we shouldn't dilute a useful insult with such an overbroad definition.

[Deadend]

If so, then 92% (according to Gallup) of the nation is bigoted, as that is the percentage that opposes polygamy.

I wonder how many gay people are in that 92% of bigots? I wonder if they recognize the irony? I wonder if African-Americans in California recognize the irony? I wonder if some people on the boards here recognize it?

:confused:
Are you trying to troll? Or just pretend that you yourself are not hating.

It should NOT have to be a state-by-state thing. As that basically sets it up where there are states that are gay friendly, but let's say a married couple goes down to South Carolina.. oh, their marriage is no longer valid in that state?
So now gay couples have states they are unable to move to and still legally be a couple. Great idea.

It should be a supreme count decision really. Some brave couple has to go and get married in a state where it's legal, then move to a state where it's not legal, then fight the judgment all the way up.

Also, I think having a larger portion of openly gay people is not a sign of declining morals, but of a higher level of civilization, as reproduction is no longer the primary goal and drive of a culture. Fun food for thought.

Also, it can't be a vote, as a majority of people are afraid of change and progress and keep talking about the good-old days. Last time I checked, the Southeast has many people still bitter about the Civil War and things were better back before the slaves were freed.

I don't like the idea that so many Americans can't stand the idea of gay people getting married, hell, a huge part of it is due to all the benefits given to spouses, but only spouses that are legally wed. Don't call it civil union unless for ALL purposes Marriage = Civil Union.

[Johan]

Are you trying to troll? Or just pretend that you yourself are not hating.

I'm with President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress. Are the Democrats bigots? Is Obama a bigot?

Are they haters?

:confused:

It gets so confusing to figure out who is a bigot and who isn't...which people are principled and which people are ignorant haters. I can't keep it straight.

[Telefrog]

Also, it can't be a vote, as a majority of people are afraid of change and progress and keep talking about the good-old days. Last time I checked, the Southeast has many people still bitter about the Civil War and things were better back before the slaves were freed.

Woah, there. It can't? Then I assume you're okay with the federal government making any law it sees fit without voter input?

[Kelegacy]

Also, I think having a larger portion of openly gay people is not a sign of declining morals, but of a higher level of civilization, as reproduction is no longer the primary goal and drive of a culture. Fun food for thought.


But I don't get why it's assumed to be morally wrong. Whose morals? Societal norms, obviously, because the majority of us aren't gay. But the majority of us aren't black either, so I don't understand why it's not immoral for a white man to marry a black woman as well. Oh that's right, it WAS at one time. Still is in some places. Society evolves. So let's do it already.

I don't think engaging in something (gay sex, gay anything) that you cannot control is immoral. If the majority of the world was gay and heterosexuals were the odd man out, I guess my attraction and interest in women, and having sex with them, would be considered indecent and wrong. But I cannot control it. I cannot become gay tomorrow.

[Kelegacy]

Woah, there. It can't? Then I assume you're okay with the federal government making any law it sees fit without voter input?

Voters have voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal use in various states. Doesn't stop the feds from busting in and taking everything. Sometimes voter input means shit until the government recognizes it.

[Telefrog]

Voters have voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal use in various states. Doesn't stop the feds from busting in and taking everything. Sometimes voter input means shit until the government recognizes it.

So, I take it by the wording of your post that you don't approve of that happening? You'd prefer if the feds listened to the voters?

[Kelegacy]

So, I take it by the wording of your post that you don't approve of that happening? You'd prefer if the feds listened to the voters?

It's a dilemma, and lots of potential for conflict. I guess I just want everything I'M for to be legal in both federal and state law. :) I'm not against much, unless it hurts other people. That's why I'm fine with cigarette smoking being banned from public establishments. But I'm not against cigarette smoking itself.

So in some cases I'd like the feds to listen to the voters. In other cases I wish the states had to listen to the feds (it all depends on how I feel about the law :) ). But it would make things much easier if there was one law to rule all instead of conflicting laws. Because in the end, whatever we vote on in individual states can be worthless unless the feds recognize it. And since states are supposed to have the power to govern themselves, I don't see a problem with states doing as they see fit within the reason.

Basically, I'd be content to stay in Maine and New England for the rest of my life, since it's a great place to live with lots of freedom. It's a picture perfect example of America.

[Johan]

I'd be content to stay in Maine and New England for the rest of my life, since it's a great place to live with lots of freedom.

Freedom in the 50 states. (http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf)

Maine:

Fiscal policy: 48th
Regulatory policy: 50th
Economic freedom: 49th
Personal freedom: 2nd
Overall: 39th

Maine, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Alaska seem to conform more to the standard paradigm of left-liberalism (but of course, only the first three states are traditionally considered liberal)

If you're a liberal/libertarian who doesn't mind the state meddling in your economic life, then you'd be happy in Maine. If you want the state out of your wallet and business, you'd be miserable.

[ShivaX]

If you're a liberal/libertarian who doesn't mind the state meddling in your economic life, then you'd be happy in Maine. If you want the state out of your wallet and business, you'd be miserable.

Then you're probably not a libertarian. They're usually defined by their dislike of the government in just about everything, especially economic matters.

[Johan]

Then you're probably not a libertarian. They're usually defined by their dislike of the government in just about everything, especially economic matters.

True enough. The government has to do something though, right? Think of the unemployment if we threw them all out of work!

[Ox]

I don't think engaging in something (gay sex, gay anything) that you cannot control is immoral.
Are you saying gay people are uncontrollable sluts who are literally incapable of saying 'no'?

Voters have voted to legalize marijuana for medicinal use in various states. Doesn't stop the feds from busting in and taking everything. Sometimes voter input means shit until the government recognizes it.
Just to be clear: while the majority of the voters in places like California have voted to legalize marijuana for certain purposes, the majority of the voters in America have consistently voted to keep marijuana illegal. So it's not so much a question of "listening to the voters" as it is "listening to only some of the voters."

[National Kato]

Are you saying gay people are uncontrollable sluts who are literally incapable of saying 'no'?

He's obviously referring to the 'choice' issue with homosexuality. That is, does one choose to be gay or is it something that is set, resulting from genetics or societal influences during upbringing? It is my belief that it is the latter and thus cannot be 'controlled' or changed, save through temporary brainwashing:

GRT3zs23sLk

[ShivaX]

True enough. The government has to do something though, right? Think of the unemployment if we threw them all out of work!

Well depends on your level of libertarianism. A lot of them are little better than anarchists when it comes down to it.

[Ox]

He's obviously referring to the 'choice' issue with homosexuality. That is, does one choose to be gay or is it something that is set, resulting from genetics or societal influences during upbringing?
But if he's referring to that, then he's missing the point. There are prominent churches which acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice, and which hold that homosexuality is therefore not sinful. But they still think gay sex is sinful, because that is a choice.

What's more, I don't think he was referring to that. Using an active verb like "engaging" is certainly an odd choice of words if you mean to suggest you're referring solely to unwilled desire, not activity.

[Kelegacy]

But if he's referring to that, then he's missing the point. There are prominent churches which acknowledge that homosexuality is not a choice, and which hold that homosexuality is therefore not sinful. But they still think gay sex is sinful, because that is a choice.

What's more, I don't think he was referring to that. Using an active verb like "engaging" is certainly an odd choice of words if you mean to suggest you're referring solely to unwilled desire, not activity.

If you want to get technical, than yes, I suppose sex in any form is a choice. But I'm not about to say no to my partner, and I wouldn't expect a gay man to say to his gay partner, "I'm gay, but gay sex is a sin so I am never going to do it." I think that is highly unrealistic. Sex is a natural thing, whether you are gay or straight. Our hormones cry out for it. I'm sure even priests get boners.

[Ink Asylum]

Why do you think they wear such loose robes?

[Kelegacy]

Freedom in the 50 states. (http://mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf)

Maine:

Fiscal policy: 48th
Regulatory policy: 50th
Economic freedom: 49th
Personal freedom: 2nd
Overall: 39th



If you're a liberal/libertarian who doesn't mind the state meddling in your economic life, then you'd be happy in Maine. If you want the state out of your wallet and business, you'd be miserable.

That breakout is definitely true unfortunately. For many people the personal freedom is more important, depending on who you are. We're one of the most heavily taxed states in the union (thanks to our state government), but also have one of the lowest income medians I believe. Paying a little more to be happier, I guess. I don't know. I'm sure all of us would love to have the financial burden eased up a bit, but it hasn't interfered with our more carefree way of life. Modern New England as a whole just seems to be more willing to let people live as they wish. However, I think if I moved to the West Coast (Oregon, Washington, California) I wouldn't feel like I was out of place.