O'Reilly tries the "gay activists are violating my civil rights" line...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

With actual lawyers in the room :p .

Vid: Linky. (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200905290050)

I am not some MediaMatters troll, but when I saw this on O'Reilly it was just too funny.

What set him off, apparently, was this remark from Charlize Theron (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b125943_charlize_theron_i_dont_agree_with.html) in response to the Prop 8 ruling:
I don't agree with homophobia or discrimination of any kind. I will continue to fight this fight for equality and speak up for the basic civil rights of all Americans.
O'Reilly asks:
"Does that include the rights of Americans who sincerely do not believe in gay marriage the right NOT to be called homophobes?"
Sorry, Bill, but no such "right" exists. Otherwise, there would be a similar "right" not to be called a "pinhead" or "Nazis" by Bill O'Reilly. And trying to claim that it does exist is in fact every bit as much an attempt to suppress the free-speech rights of the people Bill O'Reilly is criticizing.


Linky. (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/oreilly-sure-has-thin-skin-about-per)

That segment is just too funny.

[Marc39]

Who cares what a ditzy actress thinks? There are gays who oppose gay marriage. So, too, Obama. Are they homophobes?

[Alt+F4]

Who cares what a ditzy actress thinks? There are gays who oppose gay marriage. So, too, Obama. Are they homophobes?

Don't know. What are their reasons for opposing gay marriage? In Obama's case it's his "Christian faith", yet his "Christian faith" is also opposed to many behaviors he has no problem with. Why single out gays if it's not homophobia?

[Cobalt]

Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. His show does uphold the "No Spin* Zone" theme though.
He doesn't realize he's merely an entertainer, not an actual news anchor.

*Spin may be applied as deemed necessary by host to further his position in a discussion. Restrictions of spin attempted by guests may apply. Prices and participation may vary.

[Marc39]

Don't know. What are their reasons for opposing gay marriage? In Obama's case it's his "Christian faith", yet his "Christian faith" is also opposed to many behaviors he has no problem with. Why single out gays if it's not homophobia?

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of gay marriage to many is not consistent with traditional values. It does not automatically indicate homophobia.

[ImaginalDisc]

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of gay marriage to many is not consistent with traditional values. It does not automatically indicate homophobia.

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of interracial marriage to many is not cosnsitent with traditional values. It does not automaically indicate racism.

Do you see any problems?

[Marc39]

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of interracial marriage to many is not cosnsitent with traditional values. It does not automaically indicate racism.

Do you see any problems?
yeah, I see a huge problem. You comparing Blacks with gays.

[fullflavormenthol]

I am against gay marriage! Well actually I am against government recognition of all marriage. I think that marriage is a cultural/religious tradition that government shouldn't be involved with. I think all people should be free to develop social contracts (civil unions) and if they want to call themselves married...than it becomes their business and their business alone.

As far as a person's religious views on marriage, well I disregard those outright. I am an atheist and my wife is an atheist; to the people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds me and my wife are not considered married either.

And to be fair I am being a little tounge-in-cheek here, because my moral beliefs don't give me the right to tell people they can't be married.

[ImaginalDisc]

yeah, I see a huge problem. You comparing Blacks with gays.

Perspective fail.

[Marc39]

Perspective fail.

Buh bye.

[ImaginalDisc]

Buh bye.

If that's all it takes to get on your ignore list, I'm sure to be in good company.

[Marc39]

If that's all it takes to get on your ignore list, I'm sure to be in good company.

Not even that important.

[KoihimeNakamura]

What he did was disproof by counterxample. Anyway, would yo mind telling me where 'life, liberty and happiness' only applied to those who are OK by 'Society'?

[Robster, FCD]

When asked, Coretta Scott King didn't seem to have a problem with extending the civil rights struggle to the LGBT community. She didn't have any problem with comparing the discrimination and violence done in the name of racism to that being done in the name of homophobia.

[Marc39]

When asked, Coretta Scott King didn't seem to have a problem with extending the civil rights struggle to the LGBT community. She didn't have any problem with comparing the discrimination and violence done in the name of racism to that being done in the name of homophobia.

Comparing the experiences of Blacks with Gays is obscene.

[fullflavormenthol]

Comparing the experiences of Blacks with Gays is obscene.
Because gays don't face discrimination?
Because discrimination was never codified in the law?
Because gays have never been murdered because they are gay?


It may not be the best comparison, but I would hardly call it obscene.

[hcmom]

yeah, I see a huge problem. You comparing Blacks with gays.

Because discrimination of one group is ok, but not discrimination against another group?

[Redtail]

Comparing the experiences of Blacks with Gays is obscene.

Really? Why?

[Wolfman]

Comparing the experiences of Blacks with Gays is obscene.
Really? Why?
Let me take a shot at this:

* Because I like blacks, but don't like gays
* Because I can identify blacks by their appearance, but not necessarily gays
* Because I like watching videos with black people having sex, but not with gay people having sex
* Because skin color is not a moral issue, but homosexuality is
* Because the Bible doesn't teach against marrying blacks (in fact, Solomon was blessed with a number of black wives), but it does teach against marrying gays
* Because blacks have already won their battle for equality, so there's nothing I can do about it...but I can still prevent those damn gays from getting equality
* Because my momma and poppa raised me that its wrong to discriminate against people based on skin color. But stay away from those damn gays!

Anyone wanna' add to the list?

[Marc39]

Really? Why?

Yeah, really. Gays have not suffered through slavery, violence, hatred and segregation, as has been the shameful history of Blacks. Blacks are discriminated against based on skin color that cannot be disguised, while, gays can keep their sexual preferences private. Blacks are born black, while, sexual orientation has not been determined to be a characteristic of birth. In sum, there are no similarities between the Black experience and that of the gay community.

[bjornart]

Let me take a shot at this:

* Because I like blacks, but don't like gays
* Because I can identify blacks by their appearance, but not necessarily gays
* Because I like watching videos with black people having sex, but not with gay people having sex
* Because skin color is not a moral issue, but homosexuality is
* Because the Bible doesn't teach against marrying blacks (in fact, Solomon was blessed with a number of black wives), but it does teach against marrying gays
* Because blacks have already won their battle for equality, so there's nothing I can do about it...but I can still prevent those damn gays from getting equality
* Because my momma and poppa raised me that its wrong to discriminate against people based on skin color. But stay away from those damn gays!

Anyone wanna' add to the list?

* Because you can choose not to be gay, but you can't choose not to be black
or, to be charitable
* Because you can choose not to be a practicing homosexual, but you can't choose not to be a practicing black person (unless you're Michael Jackson)

[chillzero]

Yeah, really. Gays have not suffered through slavery, violence, hatred and segregation, as has been the shameful history of Blacks.
Are you sure about the bolded part?

[Marc39]

Are you sure about the bolded part?

Yeah.

[wackyvorlon]

yeah, I see a huge problem. You comparing Blacks with gays.

I had been hoping you were joking up to this point.

You assume that cultural mores are uniform when they most definitely are not. In such a situation, you must call upon an objective measurement of what is correct and what isn't. The problem is that there is no such objective measurement available for this situation. The larger question is: How does it harm society for these people to be married? I, for one, see no harm in it.

[a_unique_person]

Bill O'Reilly is violating my right to have him not exist in the same time on the same planet as I do.

[DJW]

Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. His show does uphold the "No Spin* Zone" theme though.
He doesn't realize he's merely an entertainer, not an actual news anchor.

*Spin may be applied as deemed necessary by host to further his position in a discussion. Restrictions of spin attempted by guests may apply. Prices and participation may vary.

I don't think he's an idiot, and I don't agree with you on him being an entertainer. I don't find him particularly entertaining. He's an editorialist of sorts. He's definitely opinionated. He is certainly entitled to his opinion regardless of his stunning inability to reason; especially on this issue.

It's going to take time for people to understand why gay marriage is a civil right. Calling people homophobes because they don't yet understand, or because they have religious teaching getting in the way, is probably not the best way to get it done.

IMHO--legislators need to work a lot harder on crafting laws that will pass judicial muster that protect this minority population.

[Marc39]

The larger question is: How does it harm society for these people to be married? I, for one, see no harm in it.

In the view of many with traditional values, which can be argued is the majority of society, gay marriage is antithetical to the concept of marriage. Seems that civil unions are a viable alternative.

[technoextreme]

Yeah.
God almighty some people on this forum make it dam near impossible sometimes not to break the rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_peope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#2000-2009)

[DJW]

In the view of many with traditional values, which can be argued is the majority of society, gay marriage is antithetical to the concept of marriage. Seems that civil unions are a viable alternative.

Divorce is antithetical to the concept of marriage. Marriage between two people supports the concept of marriage. Civil unions already apply to heterosexual couples. Would gay civil unions in some way tamper with the traditional value of heterosexual civil unions?

[Tricky]

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of gay marriage to many is not consistent with traditional values. It does not automatically indicate homophobia.
A society does have that right, given that rights are determined by law. Prior to 1862, US society had the right for humans to own other humans... except that slaves weren't counted as humans. That was part of society too.

But society changed. It wasn't an easy change and it wasn't instantaneous. Eventually, though, people came to realize that Negroes were indeed human and they put pressure on the government to encode this concept into law and give them the same rights that other humans had. That wasn't easy or quick either. People and even governments continued to write laws that would disenfranchise black citizens such as Jim Crow laws and the oppressive Poll Tax in the South. Eventually these too were struck down.

It is still possible to find racists in the country. It is not even hard. But few dare to speak out against the rights of Negroes any more. Their racist acts, such as burning crosses, are now illegal. Of course, they are still allowed to be racist. That freedom is guaranteed. They just have a much harder time acting on their racism.

Without going into as much detail, it was less than a hundred years ago that all women were allowed to vote in the US. That also occurred because of a change in the morality of society.

Now we see another change in the morality of society. It is becoming more and more recognized that homosexuality is not a choice, and is not harmful to society. As such, more and more people are beginning to realize that the laws we now have in place which allow discrimination against gays, are against their moral code, and they are putting pressure on their elected representatives to encode this new morality into law. More and more states are doing so.

If this follows the pattern we have seen in the past, full rights will be granted to a group that had been discriminated against and those who continue to dislike gays (homophobes, for lack of a better term) will become a fairly quiet minority in society. It could happen more quickly and with less pain if homophobes could simply renounce their homophobia and accept what seems to be the inevitable fact that their particular type of bigotry is on the way out as a societal norm. Of course, that won't happen. There will always be entrenched pods of racists, misogynists and homophobes in society. I look forward to the day when they are no longer the ones who are establishing and fostering their values and mores into law. I hope it won't be too much longer.

[Marc39]

A society does have that right, given that rights are determined by law. Prior to 1862, US society had the right for humans to own other humans... except that slaves weren't counted as humans. That was part of society too.

But society changed. It wasn't an easy change and it wasn't instantaneous. Eventually, though, people came to realize that Negroes were indeed human and they put pressure on the government to encode this concept into law and give them the same rights that other humans had. That wasn't easy or quick either. People and even governments continued to write laws that would disenfranchise black citizens such as Jim Crow laws and the oppressive Poll Tax in the South. Eventually these too were struck down.

It is still possible to find racists in the country. It is not even hard. But few dare to speak out against the rights of Negroes any more. Their racist acts, such as burning crosses, are now illegal. Of course, they are still allowed to be racist. That freedom is guaranteed. They just have a much harder time acting on their racism.

Without going into as much detail, it was less than a hundred years ago that all women were allowed to vote in the US. That also occurred because of a change in the morality of society.

Now we see another change in the morality of society. It is becoming more and more recognized that homosexuality is not a choice, and is not harmful to society. As such, more and more people are beginning to realize that the laws we now have in place which allow discrimination against gays, are against their moral code, and they are putting pressure on their elected representatives to encode this new morality into law. More and more states are doing so.

If this follows the pattern we have seen in the past, full rights will be granted to a group that had been discriminated against and those who continue to dislike gays (homophobes, for lack of a better term) will become a fairly quiet minority in society. It could happen more quickly and with less pain if homophobes could simply renounce their homophobia and accept what seems to be the inevitable fact that their particular type of bigotry is on the way out as a societal norm. Of course, that won't happen. There will always be entrenched pods of racists, misogynists and homophobes in society. I look forward to the day when they are no longer the ones who are establishing and fostering their values and mores into law. I hope it won't be too much longer.

There are federal laws in place in America prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That does not dictate that homosexuality be accepted as moral.

[Thunder]

There are federal laws in place in America prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That does not dictate that homosexuality be accepted as moral.

there is nothing "immoral" about being gay.

some might find it gross...even dare i say it "yucky".

but immoral? please.

[chillzero]

Yeah.
hm.
That maybe sounds like a nicer place than the real world.

[Thunder]

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of gay marriage to many is not consistent with traditional values.

Rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, is considered inconsistent with traditional values, for many people.

Does that mean it would okee dokee for the USA to ban public rejection of Christ?

[Upchurch]

That does not dictate that homosexuality be accepted as moral.
What dictates that homosexuality be rejected as immoral, I wonder?

[Drudgewire]

Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.


That's the long and short of it.

[Marc39]

What dictates that homosexuality be rejected as immoral, I wonder?

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.

[Tricky]

There are federal laws in place in America prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That does not dictate that homosexuality be accepted as moral.
Laws do not dictate morality. If your own personal morality says that it is right to hate gays or blacks or women, the law can do nothing about that. What it CAN do is make it so that you cannot enforce your morality in oppostion with the law.

As present, the law, in most places, allows discrimination against gays. They cannot marry. Marriage is a legal bond in most states. The fact that gays cannot enjoy that same bond is discrimination. No, don't say "Civil union is the same bond", because it isn't. Imagine if all the married people in the US were told, "You're no longer married. You're civilly bonded." Do you think they would object.

In some places, such discrimination is changing. The change in the general morality of society is what is driving this change, but it is the laws themselves that encode the morality. Until they are changed, it won't matter that most people find discrimination against gays to be wrong.

But the laws will change. They are changing now. It is, in my opinion, inevitable. But don't worry. You'll still be allowed to dislike gays. The US does not tell you what morality you must have.

[tyr_13]

There are federal laws in place in America prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That does not dictate that homosexuality be accepted as moral.

Legalized gay marriage doesn't mean you have to consider homosexuality as moral either. So what is your point?

EDIT: Tricky beat me too it.

[Upchurch]

The very act of homosexuality.
What about the very act of homosexuality dictates homosexuality be rejected as immoral?

Not a difficult concept.
I suspect it is a more difficult concept to explain that you expect, if you actually make an attempt to explain it.

In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.
Are the Arab and Muslim worlds are the basis of your morality, then?

[Marc39]

Legalized gay marriage doesn't mean you have to consider homosexuality as moral either. So what is your point?

EDIT: Tricky beat me too it.

Legalized gay marriage in the view of many accords homosexual behavior acceptability. You cannot get around the fact that homosexual behavior is not acceptable to a large segment of the population. The president of Iran refuses to even acknowledge that it exists in his country.

[Terry]

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.

Oh, you're one of those. Nothing to see here people, move along.

[ponderingturtle]

Who cares what a ditzy actress thinks? There are gays who oppose gay marriage. So, too, Obama. Are they homophobes?

It is entirely possible that they are.

[Upchurch]

Legalized gay marriage doesn't mean you have to consider homosexuality as moral either. So what is your point?
I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that Marc is using morality as his basis for arguing that gay marriage should remain illegal.

There are two ways to address this argument. One, address the assumption of whether or not homosexuality is actually immoral. Two, address whether or not a single sense of morality should be the basis of law for a diverse heterogeneous population. (Alternatively and unkindly, that could be rephrased as: Two, address whether or not a group of people should be allowed to force their morality onto others.)

So, as per the premise of Marc's argument, I think the assumption of whether homosexuality is moral is a relevant issue.

[ponderingturtle]

Comparing the experiences of Blacks with Gays is obscene.

Absolutely, blacks never where in death camps.

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah.

Ah, so you deny parts of the the nazi death camps now.

[ponderingturtle]

There are federal laws in place in America prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. That does not dictate that homosexuality be accepted as moral.

There are laws permitting miscegiation that does not mean that that is moral either. Morality is in the eye of the beholder, why should we accept that it is ok to discriminate on the basis of sex in marriage but not on the basis of race?

Miscegination laws were innitialy thought of as fair because they applied equaly to blacks and whites after all.

[ponderingturtle]

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.

So prostelatizing christanity is also immoral for the same reason.

[varwoche]

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment. Rigid, self-righteous, bible-thumping Christians. Rigid, self-righteous, Koran-thumping Muslims. Birds of a feather.

[Marc39]

Absolutely, blacks never where in death camps.

You don't know the history of slavery, then.

[Marc39]

So prostelatizing christanity is also immoral for the same reason.

No, it is not.

[Upchurch]

Least it be missed:
The very act of homosexuality.What about the very act of homosexuality dictates homosexuality be rejected as immoral?

Not a difficult concept.
I suspect it is a more difficult concept to explain that you expect, if you actually make an attempt to explain it.

In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.
Are the Arab and Muslim worlds are the basis of your morality, then?

Marc, I would like to know what it is you base your assumption that homosexuality should be rejected as immoral. Is it, as your last line suggests, a faith in Islam?

[volatile]

No, it is not.

"The very act of [proselytizing Christianity]. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, [proselytizing Christianity] is illegal, carriyng severe punishment."

By your own logic, proselytizing Christianity is immoral. See?

You have racked up over 1,000 posts in eight weeks - perhaps if you went for reasoned argument rather than one-liners, your post count would be lower but the levels of respect and attention people paid to your opinions would be a great deal higher.

[quarky]

A modest proposal:

Only black gays are allowed to marry, but must become slaves.

[Cleon]

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.

The president of Iran refuses to even acknowledge that it exists in his country.

So...We should emulate the policies of these countries?

[Upchurch]

Well, they do reflect the words of Allah, who is followed by 1.5 billion Muslims.

Is this why you find homosexuals to be immoral? Because of the words of Allah?

[Upchurch]

I'm trying to understand why you, Marc39, find homosexuality to be immoral.

Why do you find homosexuality to be immoral?

[Marc39]

I'm trying to understand why you, Marc39, find homosexuality to be immoral.

Why do you find homosexuality to be immoral?

I've not indicated I do.

[Upchurch]

I've not indicated I do.
I hate to quibble, but I believe you did:

What dictates that homosexuality be rejected as immoral, I wonder?
The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.

If it is your opinion that the very act of homosexuality in some way dictates that it be rejected as immoral, then, by nature of the fact that the very act of homosexuality exists, you have indicated that you think homosexuality to be rejected as immoral.

Are you now saying that you do not find homosexuality to be immoral?

[Marc39]

I hate to quibble, but I believe you did:




If it is your opinion that the very act of homosexuality in some way dictates that it be rejected as immoral, then, by nature of the fact that the very act of homosexuality exists, you have indicated that you think homosexuality to be rejected as immoral.

Are you now saying that you do not find homosexuality to be immoral?

You know why it's been said never to assume? Because you make an "ass" of "u" and "me"

[Upchurch]

You know why it's been said never to assume? Because you make an "ass" of "u" and "me"
I didn't assume. I drew a conclusion based on available information and asked for verification or clarification when necessary.

You, however, are avoiding the question.

[Pure Argent]

Yeah, really. Gays have not suffered through slavery, violence, hatred and segregation, as has been the shameful history of Blacks. Blacks are discriminated against based on skin color that cannot be disguised, while, gays can keep their sexual preferences private. Blacks are born black, while, sexual orientation has not been determined to be a characteristic of birth. In sum, there are no similarities between the Black experience and that of the gay community.

Simply wrong.

Well, they do reflect the words of Allah, who is followed by 1.5 billion Muslims.

And 1.5 billion Muslims can\'t be wrong. Probably the same type of argument used against slavery: \"X million Southerners can\'t be wrong!\"

I wouldn\'t contradict the words of Allah, if I were you. You could face crucifixion for such an offense in the Arab world.

Key phrase: \"in the Arab world.\" We are NOT in the Arab world here. Well, I\'m not. You might be. Where I am (America), the free and open discussion of all things, religious or not, is encouraged.

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment.

So what if homosexuality is illegal in the Arab and Muslim worlds? The law can be shown to be wrong and prejudiced. Plessy v. Ferguson was one such case. And when the law is shown to be prejudiced, it is changed.

[Normal Dude]

Now THAT ladies and gents is a great example of power trolling.

[Pardalis]

Even from a capitalist point of view, gay marriage should be legalized. Imagine the dress and suit design industry this could generate.

[mikeyx]

I am against gay marriage! Well actually I am against government recognition of all marriage. I think that marriage is a cultural/religious tradition that government shouldn't be involved with. I think all people should be free to develop social contracts (civil unions) and if they want to call themselves married...than it becomes their business and their business alone.

As far as a person's religious views on marriage, well I disregard those outright. I am an atheist and my wife is an atheist; to the people who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds me and my wife are not considered married either.

And to be fair I am being a little tounge-in-cheek here, because my moral beliefs don't give me the right to tell people they can't be married.

Government involvemnt in marriage is about revenue, ie; a Marriage license, and arguably a blood test, which just makes it all the more BS.

As for Marriage itself, why not take this idea in a practical direction: Add a requirement for mandatory parenting classes prior to approval for a breeder's license. No passing grade, no kids, cuz too many buck toothed hicks are breeding when they don't know how to raise the kids.

[ponderingturtle]

No, it is not.

Hey it is illegal in many of the same countries as homosexuality, so either it is immoral or you do not believe in your arguement for why homosexuality is immoral.

[ponderingturtle]

Now THAT ladies and gents is a great example of power trolling.

Naa, he only rates a maybe a 3 on the power troll scale. A true power troll can make threads this long with one post.

[thaiboxerken]

There are federal laws in place in America prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

So why do you support laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation?

[tyr_13]

An none of this makes what O'Reilly said any less stupid. It is still a painful example of the self-serving bias.

[Redtail]

Yeah, really. Gays have not suffered through slavery, violence, hatred and segregation, as has been the shameful history of Blacks.

If you ignore the Nazi labor/death camps I guess one could say gays were never targeted for slavery, (that would be a silly attempt though) the rest is just wrong.

Blacks are discriminated against based on skin color that cannot be disguised, while, gays can keep their sexual preferences private.

That would depend on the particular Black person. Trust me I'm an expert in that respect.

Blacks are born black, while, sexual orientation has not been determined to be a characteristic of birth.

If/when it is, will you then support gay marriage or find another reason to object to it?

In sum, there are no similarities between the Black experience and that of the gay community.

Again, this is just wrong.

[Skeptic]

Don't know. What are their reasons for opposing gay marriage?

But wait. I thought the ONLY reason that anybody would POSSIBLY oppose gay marriage is being a "homophobe"? I was told exactly that by pro-gay marriage people.

So Obama is a homophobe, isn't he? And so is Elton John, for starters.

Who knew?

[pgwenthold]

If/when it is, will you then support gay marriage or find another reason to object to it?


Ouch. Bluff. Called.

That's a great question. "IF it were ever unequivocally shown that homosexuality was in-born and not a choice, would that change your mind about gay marriage?"

I've said the same thing about the "think of the children" argument. Suppose gay marriage was legal BUT it would be illegal for them to have custody of children. Would that change their mind? Of course not.

[pgwenthold]

But wait. I thought the ONLY reason that anybody would POSSIBLY oppose gay marriage is being a "homophobe"? I was told exactly that by pro-gay marriage people.

So Obama is a homophobe, isn't he?

This is not an outlandish thought at all, particularly among the gay community.

[Cleon]

But wait. I thought the ONLY reason that anybody would POSSIBLY oppose gay marriage is being a "homophobe"? I was told exactly that by pro-gay marriage people.

Well, countering that argument would be easier if you could present some vaguely logical reason why you oppose it.

[linusrichard]

Well, countering that argument would be easier if you could present some vaguely logical reason why you oppose it.

He's already failed to do this in another thread. The "argument" runs something like this:

1. Gay marriage proponents have stated reasons for favoring gay marriage, e.g., equality under the law, no good reason for discriminate, legal recognition of loving committed relationship between two consenting adults.
2. It would be inappropriate to suggest that this is all a pretext, and that gay marriage proponents are actually motivated by pedophilia.*
3. Gay marriage opponents likewise have their reasons for opposing gay marriage, e.g., ________________________________________.
4. Therefore, it would likewise be inappropriate to suggest that _______________________ is all a pretext, and that gay marriage opponents are actually homophobes.

Now - fill in those blanks with something plausible and non-homophobic, and you've got a half-decent argument! Unfortunately, I can't think of anything, and Skeptic's not telling.

*Never mind that pedophilia is not exactly advanced by gay marriage, at least not in any way I can figure out.

[Tricky]

But wait. I thought the ONLY reason that anybody would POSSIBLY oppose gay marriage is being a "homophobe"? I was told exactly that by pro-gay marriage people.

Technically, yes. Think, why would anyone be against gay marriage? All reasons boil down to fear. Sometimes that fear is that allowing gays this right will harm society. Now even if this were true, and I don't think there is good evidence to support this, it would still be "fear", albeit justified fear.

But then, I don't worry too much about people being homophobic. Like racism, I think everybody has some instinctual fear of things different from themselves. If I were trapped in the bathroom of a gay biker bar, would I be afraid? Damn right I would. (At least, more afraid than I'd be if trapped in the bathroom at a female nymphomaniac bar.) It is in facing our own prejudices and trying to overcome them that we prevent our innate bigotry from ruling us.

So Obama is a homophobe, isn't he?
Yep. Politicians are a special case though. Their fear of gays is the same fear they have of every hot-button issue. :D

And so is Elton John, for starters.

Who knew?
Of course gays can be homophobes. Ted Haggard is exhibit A.

[Random]

But wait. I thought the ONLY reason that anybody would POSSIBLY oppose gay marriage is being a "homophobe"? I was told exactly that by pro-gay marriage people.

Millions of anti-gay types have spoken and written billions of words on why they oppose gay marriage and have provided hundreds of reasons why they oppose gay marriage. Not one of these reasons however, holds up to logic and reason. Every last one of their arguments eventually boils down to, “gays are icky”, a position which is really just a matter of opinion.

[Upchurch]

But wait. I thought the ONLY reason that anybody would POSSIBLY oppose gay marriage is being a "homophobe"? I was told exactly that by pro-gay marriage people.

Okay.

Skeptic you've resisted every opportunity to explain why you think (1) homosexuality is immoral and (2) why you think gays should not be allowed to be married. Perhaps if you could just clarify these matters, it won't be so easy to draw the conclusion that you are homophobic.

[Thunder]

Gays doing gay things..does not effect my life one bit. Only insecure people..or people who even quietly question their own sexuality, are bothered by such things.

My bosses go on and on about gays this...gays that. Yet they also keep making homosexual suggestions and even propositions.

What am I getting at? A good portion of homophobes are actually probably closeted homosexuals.

[Cleon]

What am I getting at? A good portion of homophobes are actually probably closeted homosexuals.

Claims like that are ultimately unprovable; there's just no way to know one way or the other. You can't test for it.

I think the problem with allegations like that is that assign motive without evidence. It's really quite like saying "you only criticize Israel because you hate Jews." It's an excuse to dismiss a different opinion (not to mention the person expressing said opinion) without actually addressing it.

[Thunder]

Claims like that are ultimately unprovable; there's just no way to know one way or the other. You can't test for it.

I think the problem with allegations like that is that assign motive without evidence. .

I'm sure it cannot be quantified. I just have noticed a lot of homophobes seeming to have severe self-esteem issues, and possible sexual confusion or frustrations.

But, are people who obsess over gay issues and hating gays, people with problems? I say a big YES.

[Alferd_Packer]

Yeah, really. Gays have not suffered through slavery, violence, hatred and segregation, as has been the shameful history of Blacks. Blacks are discriminated against based on skin color that cannot be disguised, while, gays can keep their sexual preferences private.


Obviously your gaydar is broken.




Blacks are born black, while, sexual orientation has not been determined to be a characteristic of birth.

Not entirely, true, but there are definitely biological factors involved.




In sum, there are no similarities between the Black experience and that of the gay community.

Just curious, since you seem to be familiar with the experiences of both groups, are you black and gay?

[Thunder]

Not entirely, true, but there are definitely biological factors involved.


I am 100% convinced that being homosexual is 75% caused by DNA and hormonal development at a VERY young age, and 25% caused by environment.

But if I had to make a bet, I'd say they are totally born that way. Just as I was born straight.

Secondly, Marc39 says that gays have never suffered from discrimination and violence. How can anyone make such an ignorant statement?

I don't support gay marriage, for my own personal reasons, but I totally support domestic partnership with ALL the same rights as marriage. Basically marriage without the title.

[Upchurch]

I don't support gay marriage, for my own personal reasons, but I totally support domestic partnership with ALL the same rights as marriage. Basically marriage without the title.
How come?

[Thunder]

How come?
mostly for reasons of tradition. in the USA, all religions are given equal rights. but Christianity and Christian symbols and holidays still hold a special place within government. why is that? tradition.

i want gays and gay relationships to have EVERY SINGLE right that heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships have. i just want the title of marriage to be given to straight couples only. for simply the reason of tradition.

its that simple.

is this "separate but equal"? yes it is.

but i only support it if it is indeed.....EQUAL.

now, is it possible that employers may discriminate against domestic partnerships..and not marriages? possibly. but they could just as easily try to discriminate against gay marriages and not straight marriages. just as employers could try to discriminate against inter-racial marriages. it would still be illegal to do so.

my main concern is rights...and freedom. the freedom to have your relationship and love recognized by the state.

[Alferd_Packer]

SO, what about group marriage?

(OK that's a troll)

[fullflavormenthol]

Well I think my solution is beginning to be viable. Take away the title of marriage from the law. Render all existing marriages into the title of Civil Unions, and then leave the subject of calling the partnership a marriage up to the couples. That way all the religious people can refuse to call it a marriage, and it won't matter because there will be no legally recognized marriages at all.

If marriage is about religion and tradition than the government should not be involved with it.

[Thunder]

Well I think my solution is beginning to be viable. Take away the title of marriage from the law. Render all existing marriages into the title of Civil Unions, and then leave the subject of calling the partnership a marriage up to the couples.

another great idea. this is my 2nd proposal.

get the state out of marriage. just make our legal status "civil union" and let churches issue marriage certificates.

[Upchurch]

mostly for reasons of tradition. in the USA, all religions are given equal rights. but Christianity and Christian symbols and holidays still hold a special place within government. why is that? tradition.
Do you consider that a good thing?

is this "separate but equal"? yes it is.

but i only support it if it is indeed.....EQUAL.
You are, I take it, familiar with how that has worked out in the past and how we, as a nation, learned that separate is anything but equal?

my main concern is rights...and freedom. the freedom to have your relationship and love recognized by the state.
And if those rights and freedoms can't truly be granted unless you also grant the term "marriage", would you support marriage for gay people then?

[Thunder]

Do you consider that a good thing?
You are, I take it, familiar with how that has worked out in the past and how we, as a nation, learned that separate is anything but equal?
And if those rights and freedoms can't truly be granted unless you also grant the term "marriage", would you support marriage for gay people then?

1. Do i think the USA using Christian symbols and traditions being a part of our society is ok? Sure why not. As long as people are allowed to practise any religion they choose and no religion gets any financial or political benefits over another. And I am Jewish. :)

2. You are suggesting that giving the title of "marriage" to gay unions, instead of the title "domestic partner", will guarantee no discrimination. That is a silly thing to suggest. People may attempt to discriminate against gay unions REGARDLESS of what they are called. The name is irrelevant, at least as rights and protection is concerned. it is because that the name we call it is irrelevant, and only the legal protections and enforcement of these protections matter, that i think straight couples can be called marriage and gay couples called domestic partnership.

[thaiboxerken]

Parky.. you're in favor of governing laws based on christian traditions?! Why?

[Thunder]

Parky.. you're in favor of governing laws based on christian traditions?! Why?

Is this an error...or a strawman?

i have no problem with a few christian symbols, holidays, and prayers, being used by my government. as long as i have equal rights...what do i care?

The supreme document for the laws of the USA, is the Constitution, not the Gospel. Thats all I care about.

i got more important things to whine about then Christmas trees on the White House lawn

[Distracted1]

In almost every topic on this forum I am repeatedly brought face to face with a view that differs from my own, but has something underlying it that is seemingly rational. Even some of the 911 conspiracy believers make good points that give me pause.
I must confess to being entirely mystified by the opposition to gay marriage. I find homosexual sex to be about as appealing as drinking my own urine (in case that needs explaining, I mean not appealing at all) but I can't come up with a single reason not to allow two other adults to consummate with all the gusto in their nature. I am baffled by anyone that can do so and still consider themselves a critical thinker.
I problably would'nt want to have sex with your 90 year old grandparents either, but that doese'nt mean their marriage is null and void even if they don't want to have sex with each other anymore.

[Fiona]

2. You are suggesting that giving the title of "marriage" to gay unions, instead of the title "domestic partner", will guarantee no discrimination. That is a silly thing to suggest. People may attempt to discriminate against gay unions REGARDLESS of what they are called. The name is irrelevant, at least as rights and protection is concerned. it is because that the name we call it is irrelevant, and only the legal protections and enforcement of these protections matter, that i think straight couples can be called marriage and gay couples called domestic partnership.

Well I don't think so Parky76. I cannot make sense of your argument because you cannot say the word is irrelevant and then make a case for not using it for all. Can you?

So far as I can see "tradition" covers a lot of things. Gay people share the traditions of their culture. To the extent that marriage is a symbol of something beyond the legal provisions it would seem to me that it is associated with things many people want. For some it does not so associate and so it does not matter: for some it does. I am not sure that split is along the same line as any gay/straight divide.

[Thunder]

In almost every topic on this forum I am repeatedly brought face to face with a view that differs from my own, but has something underlying it that is seemingly rational. Even some of the 911 conspiracy believers make good points that give me pause.
I must confess to being entirely mystified by the opposition to gay marriage. I find homosexual sex to be about as appealing as drinking my own urine (in case that needs explaining, I mean not appealing at all) but I can't come up with a single reason not to allow two other adults to consummate with all the gusto in their nature. I am baffled by anyone that can do so and still consider themselves a critical thinker.
I problably would'nt want to have sex with your 90 year old grandparents either, but that doese'nt mean their marriage is null and void even if they don't want to have sex with each other anymore.

As long as one is not clearly motivated by bigotry and hatred, I believe that the views of those who are against gay marriage should be respected just as much as those who are for it.

[Distracted1]

I almost have to ask: What motives besides bigotry and hatred can there be to prohibit gay marriage?
Logical, Rational,well reasoned arguments that don't come down to .."because I don't like to think about it"

[Thunder]

I almost have to ask: What motives besides bigotry and hatred can there be to prohibit gay marriage?
"

ah, so if one disagrees with you, they automatically MUST be a bigot.

very nice. so much for "tolerance".

President Barack Obama does NOT support a Federal law legalizing gay marriage. Does that make him also a bigot? And if not.....why us and not him?

[Distracted1]

That is a misrepresentation of what I said.
I intended to imply that I have seen thus far NO rational arguments based upon logical principles for denying homosexuals the right to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals.
Were I to posit an argument that some racial/ethnic/religous group should be denied the rights that the rest of us enjoy without providing a thoughtful explanation of how said group is logically unentitled to that right, it would be rational for you to suggest that I was being a bigot.

[Thunder]

That is a misrepresentation of what I said.
I intended to imply that I have seen thus far NO rational arguments based upon logical principles for denying homosexuals the right to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals. .

Marriage is a title...not a benefit or a right.

I propose that they have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT...as married straight couples. But not the title "married".

Again, you seem to be assuming that just because gay couples can be declared "married" by the state, they will suffer none.... or less discrimination.... then if they are "domestic partners". And thats just silly. If folks wanna try to discriminate against them, they will try, regardless of what their relationship is called.

Or, get the government OUT of the marriage system, and just issue Civil Union licenses. let the religious institutions issue "marriage" certificates.

then all couples can be called "married", and my tax dollars got nothing to do with it.

[Distracted1]

From Wiki (sorry it was the first to come up):


The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws


........even the right to the title

[Thunder]

........even the right to the title

until someone can prove that simply having the title "married" rather then "domestic partner" will ENSURE more rights, i believe this argument is fatally flawed.

if the rights and benefits are 100% identical on Federal, State, and local law, then they are equal.

contrary to Jim Crow laws, which did NOT ensure equal protection, rights, benefits, etc.

again, a simple title ain't gonna stop Billy Bob from being a bigot.

[Distracted1]

I also support Billy Bobs' right to be a bigot to his hearts content.

But if Billy Bob want's to sit on my supreme court, he had better have a better rationale for refusing to uphold equal protection.

[Thunder]

But if Billy Bob want's to sit on my supreme court, he had better have a better rationale for refusing to uphold equal protection.

Strawman.

I fully, 100%, totally, believe that same-sex unions should have the EXACT SAME rights and benefits, of opposite-sex unions.

You're gonna have to prove to me that a simple name has the identical legal and social meaning, as actual laws protecting rights and benefits. So far, you have failed to do so.

Once again, you appear to be suggesting:

call them married, they will be treated equally, by all.

call them domestic partners, they will be treated as less, by all.

such an argument has no grounding.

....on a side not, I am concerned that for some, but not all, this isn't simply about having equal rights, privelages, and benefits....but about forcing people to call a relationship something that they do not feel comfortable calling it.

this should ONLY be about freedom, rights, and benefits. nothing more.

[ddt]

mostly for reasons of tradition. in the USA, all religions are given equal rights. but Christianity and Christian symbols and holidays still hold a special place within government. why is that? tradition.

i want gays and gay relationships to have EVERY SINGLE right that heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships have. i just want the title of marriage to be given to straight couples only. for simply the reason of tradition.

Two remarks to that. By giving gay couples the right for a civil union, you don't bestow them with equal rights. The institution 'marriage' is recognized world-wide. A gay married couple from VT that moves to Spain will enjoy the benefits that Spanish law bestows on married couples. A gay "civil unionized" couple from CA will not, as Spain does not have civil unions.

Secondly, "tradition" does not mean an age-old institution that hasn't changed. On closer inspection, most "traditions" are at most 19th Century inventions and have undergone various changes. Yes, marriage is much older, but the way marriages are conducted has undergone big changes through the centuries. Or who may get married (the RC church has no divorce, for instance). So, why would it be a problem to amend it to include gay couples?

[Thunder]

Two remarks to that. By giving gay couples the right for a civil union, you don't bestow them with equal rights. The institution 'marriage' is recognized world-wide. A gay married couple from VT that moves to Spain will enjoy the benefits that Spanish law bestows on married couples. A gay "civil unionized" couple from CA will not, as Spain does have civil unions.

did you mean, "Spain does NOT have civil unions"?

this, so far, is the ONLY rational reason I have seen so far, for having the marriage designation for both same-sex and opposite sex couples.

though, at the same time, if a country is not going to recognize gay marriages, legalized gay marriages in the USA will NOT change that.

Just because the authorities in Vermont recognize gay marriages, doesn't mean Saudi Arabia or Iran will give a damn.

which just proves my point..that it is NOT about names and titles..it is ALL about the laws and protections on the books.

[Distracted1]

If I desire to be referred to as "married", and meet the same criteria as the person in front of me who is legally able to refer to him/her self as "married", then denying me the use of that title is denying me equal protection.
Furthermore, using seperate titles would impact upon my right to privacy- when filling out a form check: __ Married
__Single
__Domestic partnered

might as well read:
__Married
__Single
__Gay

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Claims like that are ultimately unprovable; there's just no way to know one way or the other. You can't test for it.

Actually, you can and they have done the study.

Oh, it was so hilarious. Made the Journal of Abnormal Psychology a lot more fun!

Linky, (http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1996-00463-014)

Definitely not conclusive, but interesting nonetheless. Homophobic men had more arousal to gay porn that non-homophobic straight men, and then many of them denied the arousal.

[Thunder]

Actually, you can and they have done the study.

Definitely not conclusive, but interesting nonetheless. Homophobic men had more arousal to gay porn that non-homophobic straight men, and then many of them denied the arousal.

I knew it!!!!!!

So what does it mean that I have never gotten sexually aroused from scenes of gay sex?

i am totally showing this article to my homophobic director and deputy director!!!


lolol

....well...maybe not. i dont wanna die.

[Redtail]

I knew it!!!!!!

So what does it mean that I have never gotten sexually aroused from scenes of gay sex?

You're in the shoe nook of the closet.:p

[Tsukasa Buddha]

until someone can prove that simply having the title "married" rather then "domestic partner" will ENSURE more rights, i believe this argument is fatally flawed.

if the rights and benefits are 100% identical on Federal, State, and local law, then they are equal.

contrary to Jim Crow laws, which did NOT ensure equal protection, rights, benefits, etc.

again, a simple title ain't gonna stop Billy Bob from being a bigot.

See the New Jersey case:

Also as of today, 211 couples have reported to Garden State Equality that their employers refuse to recognize their civil unions. With the state recently having reported that 1,358 couples have gotten civil-unioned since the law took effect on February 19, the law's failure rate is an astonishing 1 in every 7.
Among the companies flaunting the civil unions law, according to two of the complaints, are two competitors of UPS: Fed Ex and DHL.


Linky. (http://www.politickernj.com/ups-caves-fed-ex-dhl-and-scores-other-companies-continue-flaunt-new-jerseys-civil-unions-law-10618)

In a report that could lead to New Jersey legalizing gay marriage, the Civil Union Review Commission said same-sex couples cannot achieve equality with heterosexual couples if their legal status is restricted to civil unions.
Full marriage is the only way to meet a state constitutional requirement for equality, said the 13-member panel of public officials, clergy, lawyers and same-sex marriage advocates.
The panel was picked by the governor, other state officials and state agencies and charged with evaluating New Jersey's civil union law and making a recommendation. Its recommendation was unanimous.
"The Commission finds that the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children," the panel said in a 79-page report based on an 18-month investigation.
Citing "overwhelming evidence," it said "civil unions will not be recognized by the general public as the equivalent of marriage in New Jersey."


Linky. (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4B96KJ20081210)

[Monketey Ghost]

*snip*,
I must confess to being entirely mystified by the opposition to gay marriage. *snippinzy*

Myself as well. I'll state unequivocally that opposition to gay marriage is absurd. It is based on personal revulsion/dislike, and the reasons given here are as poor an excuse for discrimination as I've ever heard.

In a couple of hundred years this crap will all be in history books, both racial and sexual bigotry, and people then will look back on this "debate" and be amazed that such inequality was ever allowed to stand in the land of the free where "all men are created equal".

[Thunder]

Myself as well. I'll state unequivocally that opposition to gay marriage is absurd. It is based on personal revulsion/dislike, and the reasons given here are as poor an excuse for discrimination as I've ever heard.

In a couple of hundred years this crap will all be in history books, both racial and sexual bigotry, and people then will look back on this "debate" and be amazed that such inequality was ever allowed to stand in the land of the free where "all men are created equal".

i can only speak for myself. i see it as an issue about cultural tradition.

would i have a fit if gay marriage is Federaly legalized? no. society must evolve.

ive expressed my opinion, but it aint something im gonna rally in Times Square over.

i got more important things to worry about, like sushi!!!!

[Thunder]

You're in the shoe nook of the closet.:p

i just did a little experiment on the internet.

i think i am still straight.

:)

and still Master of my Domain!!!

...Seinfeld fans may now applaud.

[Random]

Marriage is a title...not a benefit or a right.

I propose that they have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT...as married straight couples. But not the title "married".

Again, you seem to be assuming that just because gay couples can be declared "married" by the state, they will suffer none.... or less discrimination.... then if they are "domestic partners". And thats just silly. If folks wanna try to discriminate against them, they will try, regardless of what their relationship is called.

So you belive that homosexuals should not have the title of "married" but instead a seperate legal framework that is equal in all respects. This sounds familiar to me for some reason...

There are always going to be "one penis, one vagina" types who hate gay marriage, and if the two institutions, "marriage" and "whatever" are seperate, the OPOV crowd will be able to take steps to weaken one while strengthening the other. By encoding them into two seperate legal frameworks you just create a situation with OPOVers fighting to make "marriage" better that "whatever" and gays trying to keep them the same forever. Far simpler to just change marriage laws so that genital configurations are not considered.

Heck, are there any marriage laws that are actually different based one whether you have a penis or a vagina to begin with? I have seen cases where ex-wives are obligated to pay child support to ex-husbands...

[Thunder]

So you belive that homosexuals should not have the title of "married" but instead a seperate legal framework that is equal in all respects. This sounds familiar to me for some reason...

i will accept this analogy when you prove that the laws on the books in the Jim Crow states provided for completely identical protections, rights, benefits, and privelages, for black and white citizens.

and we ALL know..they very much did not.

Its not "seperate but equal" if the laws are in fact, highly unequal.

the intent of "Seperate but Equal" was not to have utterly equal..yet racially seperate...societies.

the purposes was to make the lives of black folks...hell on Earth and to keep them from voting.

now, if you can prove to me that the intention of domestic partnership over marriage for gay couples is to keep them from certain rights and freedoms, then I will be interested.

but if the only "right" they are kept from having, is a silly title, then no...sorry Charlie.

[ddt]

did you mean, "Spain does NOT have civil unions"?
Yes, indeed - thanks for spotting the typo.


this, so far, is the ONLY rational reason I have seen so far, for having the marriage designation for both same-sex and opposite sex couples.

though, at the same time, if a country is not going to recognize gay marriages, legalized gay marriages in the USA will NOT change that.

Just because the authorities in Vermont recognize gay marriages, doesn't mean Saudi Arabia or Iran will give a damn.
That's why I picked Spain, a country which does have gay marriage itself. Of course it is not going to change the status quo in Saudi Arabia, in Iran or in Poland.

But I equally doubt that a CA "civil unionized" couple will be automatically granted that same status in, say, Denmark or the Netherlands - to name a few countries that have civil unions themselves - without jumping through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops. There's no legal precedent, there are no international treaties to do so.

And such treaties won't be forthcoming either, as long as each of the 50 US states make up each their own version of a civil union. I admit it's a mess right now within the EU as well, but at least there's initiative from Brussels/Strassbourg (http://www.365gay.com/news/eu-calls-for-gay-couple-rights-end-to-homophobia/) that each country must recognize another country's same-sex marriage.

[Distracted1]

...now, if you can prove to me that the intention of domestic partnership over marriage for gay couples is to keep them from certain rights and freedoms, then I will be interested.

but if the only "right" they are kept from having, is a silly title, then no...sorry Charlie.

I don't think the intent matters if the outcome is a violation of equal protection.
And I think I already pointed out that being obligated to report " civilly joined" (or some such) as opposed to "married" or "single" in any number of situations where questions such as this are asked (loan apps., I.R.S. forms etc...) creates a situation where privacy is infringed upon, as marking "civilly Joined" is tantamount to marking "gay"

[Tsukasa Buddha]

i will accept this analogy when you prove that the laws on the books in the Jim Crow states provided for completely identical protections, rights, benefits, and privelages, for black and white citizens.

and we ALL know..they very much did not.

Its not "seperate but equal" if the laws are in fact, highly unequal.

the intent of "Seperate but Equal" was not to have utterly equal..yet racially seperate...societies.

the purposes was to make the lives of black folks...hell on Earth and to keep them from voting.

now, if you can prove to me that the intention of domestic partnership over marriage for gay couples is to keep them from certain rights and freedoms, then I will be interested.

but if the only "right" they are kept from having, is a silly title, then no...sorry Charlie.

What the hell are you talking about?

"Separate but equal is inherently unequal" comes from Brown v. Board of Education, not the Jim Crow laws.

And I gave you evidence and a State's investigatory conclusion that civil unions do not protect the rights that marriage would.

[Thunder]

"Separate but equal is inherently unequal" comes from Brown v. Board of Education, not the Jim Crow laws.

wasn't this based on the evidence of how Seperate but Equal was actually being practised..since Plecy vs. Ferguson was passed?

[Thunder]

I don't think the intent matters if the outcome is a violation of equal protection.
And I think I already pointed out that being obligated to report " civilly joined" (or some such) as opposed to "married" or "single" in any number of situations where questions such as this are asked (loan apps., I.R.S. forms etc...) creates a situation where privacy is infringed upon, as marking "civilly Joined" is tantamount to marking "gay"

that is why i propose that civil unions and domestic partnerships become legally identical to marriage, as far as state, federal, and local law is concerned.

i want equal rights for all. regardless of what u call their relationship.

[Random]

i will accept this analogy when you prove that the laws on the books in the Jim Crow states provided for completely identical protections, rights, benefits, and privelages, for black and white citizens.

and we ALL know..they very much did not.

Its not "seperate but equal" if the laws are in fact, highly unequal.

the intent of "Seperate but Equal" was not to have utterly equal..yet racially seperate...societies.

the purposes was to make the lives of black folks...hell on Earth and to keep them from voting.

now, if you can prove to me that the intention of domestic partnership over marriage for gay couples is to keep them from certain rights and freedoms, then I will be interested.

but if the only "right" they are kept from having, is a silly title, then no...sorry Charlie.

While the unspoken goal of the bigots in the case of the Jim Crow laws was making sure whites had better lives than blacks, "Seprate but Equal" was the legal hook they hung their hat on, backed up by the USSC case Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896. The laws never stated that the separate facilities for blacks and whites should be unequal, it turned out that way in practice though.

As long as OPOV marriage is separate from gay marriage (whatever you want to call it) there will be pressure from a variety of interests to treat them differently.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

that is why i propose that civil unions and domestic partnerships become legally identical to marriage, as far as state, federal, and local law is concerned.

i want equal rights for all. regardless of what u call their relationship.

Haven't you already gotten evidence to the contrary?

[Distracted1]

I would not object to that compromise. (the one where the state gets out of the "marriage" business altogether)
I do question wether it is actually as likely to be passable as a "gay marriage" law, however.
To convince the population to allow homosexuals to call themselves married requires absolutely nothing of the married populace except to say something like..." yeah, okay, why not/" then go about their day.
To do away with marriage altogether (in name only- as you suggest) would require that all married people be willing to re-define who they are, the effect would be the same but getting there would be harder.

[Random]

that is why i propose that civil unions and domestic partnerships become legally identical to marriage, as far as state, federal, and local law is concerned.

i want equal rights for all. regardless of what u call their relationship.

Then why not call it "marriage"? It just seems like you are keeping the door open for future discrimination for no real reason.

[Upchurch]

I do question wether it is actually as likely to be passable as a "gay marriage" law, however.
It's only a matter of time. The younger you look in the demographics (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39#2), the more support you find for gay marriage.

I think the big push to have a Constitutional Amendment now is to make it much more difficult for future generations to legalize it.

[Thunder]

Then why not call it "marriage"? It just seems like you are keeping the door open for future discrimination for no real reason.

if it is illegal to discriminate against civil unions and domestic partnership, then it is illegal to discriminate against them.

calling it "marriage" wont make a homophobe less likely to try to discriminate against it

all that matters to me, is the legal protections behind it.

if i want to call only straight folks "married"..that should be my right.

but..I should NOT have the right...to treat them differently in terms of employment, housing, hotel service, car rental, restaurant service, etc etc etc.

and like i said, if gay marriage become Federal law, I won't have a sleepless night.

[Upchurch]

calling it "marriage" wont make a homophobe less likely to try to discriminate against it

all that matters to me, is the legal protections behind it.

if i want to call only straight folks "married"..that should be my right.
We're not talking about anyone's right to call only straight folks married. Even if gay marriage were fully legalized, you would still have that right.

We're talking about the government's right to discriminate between two groups of citizens.

[Thunder]

We're not talking about anyone's right to call only straight folks married. Even if gay marriage were fully legalized, you would still have that right.

We're talking about the government's right to discriminate between two groups of citizens.

i dont believe that a simple title, without any legal differences, is enough of a big deal.

[Upchurch]

i dont believe that a simple title, without any legal differences, is enough of a big deal.
But it is enough of a deal that you don't support it?

[Thunder]

But it is enough of a deal that you don't support it?

if i was the deciding dude....i would say no. marriage is the title for opposite sex couples, and same-sex couples are domestic partners. both titles will become completely equal under Federal and State law.

or

State govt's issue Civil Union certificates ONLY....for straight and gay couples. let the religious institutions issue marriage papers.

but i am not the deciding dude, so who cares.

:)

[Distracted1]

if it is illegal to discriminate against civil unions and domestic partnership, then it is illegal to discriminate against them.

calling it "marriage" wont make a homophobe less likely to try to discriminate against it

all that matters to me, is the legal protections behind it.

if i want to call only straight folks "married"..that should be my right.

but..I should NOT have the right...to treat them differently in terms of employment, housing, hotel service, car rental, restaurant service, etc etc etc.

and like i said, if gay marriage become Federal law, I won't have a sleepless night.
It's your right to call only straight persons married in a Catholic ceremony "married" if you want, thats your right.
The Government is'nt as free from constraint (thankfully)
I happen to think that gay marriage already is federal law.

[Tricky]

I do not understand why anyone who is fine with civil unions would object to allowing them to be called "marriage". It has nothing to do with religion. I'm an atheist and I'm married. It has nothing to do with tradition. "Traditionally", marriage has meant everything from polygamy to legal pedophilia to celibacy (nuns are "married" to the church - nobody seems to object to the use of the term). The only possible reason to make the distinction is so that people can tell that a married couple is straight and a civilly unionized couple is gay. Why in the world would a person who believes in equal rights for gays insist on such a distinction? Parky, can you answer that question?

[Thunder]

I The only possible reason to make the distinction is so that people can tell that a married couple is straight and a civilly unionized couple is gay. Why in the world would a person who believes in equal rights for gays insist on such a distinction? Parky, can you answer that question?

Um, honestly, I might prefer having my long term commitment with a woman called a civil union rather then marriage. "marriage" is soo....11th century.

but to DIRECTLY answer your question, I guess some part of me just likes a bit of benign tradition not being ###### with. Like Christmas trees on the White House lawn and "God" in our pledge of allegiance.

in the eyes of homophobes, same-sex couples will NEVER be equal to straight couples. no amount of laws or titles will EVER change that.

[Tricky]

Um, honestly, I might prefer having my long term commitment with a woman called a civil union rather then marriage. "marriage" is soo....11th century.
Fine. Call it that. That is your choice. Why would you object to allowing others to have that choice?

***
ETA
How do you like this compromise:
A couple walks into the license office. They have the choice of having their form read either "Marriage License" or "License for Civil Union". Any couple can pick either one they choose.

[Thunder]

How do you like this compromise:
A couple walks into the license office. They have the choice of having their form read either "Marriage License" or "License for Civil Union". They can pick either one they choose.

can we add the option "Love Junkies"?

:D

[Distracted1]

can we add the option "Love Junkies"?

:D
Ill take it, as long as either hetero- or homosexual couples can choose either term.

[SezMe]

but to DIRECTLY answer your question, I guess some part of me just likes a bit of benign tradition not being ###### with. Like ... "God" in our pledge of allegiance..
Boy, you really screwed your argument with that one. Having god in the pledge was NOT traditional until 1954 when it was changed in the McCarthy era. So, to quote you, tradition was "###### with". Why not "###### with" the word "marriage" if it is ok with to "###### with" the pledge?

[fullflavormenthol]

I think I have written before that I am being more than a little tounge-in-cheek in calling for the elimination of all marriage in favor of civil unions.

I think my point is that religion and tradition is a horrible reason to deny marriage to some. I mean according to many a Christian I have met I cannot be married to my wife because we are both atheists. Maybe they are correct, because to us marriage isn't a sacred covenant but more of a social contract or civil union as it were.

Nothing would prevent a person from not believing that gay people are "really married". They can think it all day long while those couples get married under the law.

For most people marriage is nothing more than a word to describe their social contract. It doesn't have the same significance to "Holy Matrimony".

So why? Why create a tiered system of marriages that are equal, but not "really equal" to others. Let the religious believe what they want, but I don't want their beliefs being forced on others.

[Thunder]

Boy, you really screwed your argument with that one. Having god in the pledge was NOT traditional until 1954 when it was changed in the McCarthy era.


good point my friend.

[Tricky]

can we add the option "Love Junkies"?

:D
Okay by me. I'd be happy letting anybody call it whatever they want, including "Love Junkies" or "Get Yer Whang Bang Thang On" or "Legal Agreement for the Purpose of Having Shared Property and Mutual Financial Growth" or "Agreement to Drive Each Other to the Doctor's Office" or "Someone to Watch Jeopardy With" or even "Marriage". Do you agree?

[Thunder]

Okay by me. I'd be happy letting anybody call it whatever they want, including "Love Junkies" or "Get Yer Whang Bang Thang On" or "Legal Agreement for the Purpose of Having Shared Property and Mutual Financial Growth" or "Agreement to Drive Each Other to the Doctor's Office" or "Someone to Watch Jeopardy With" or even "Marriage". Do you agree?

i dont know. all i know is, there is some part of me, something i cannot explain, that views hetero couples differently then homo couples. this includes lesbian and male gay.

im sorry. its just how i feel.

i guess, i just view opposite sex couples as being more natural. lock and key kinda thing. its as simple as that. got nothing to do with religion or morality.

:o

hope no one is gonna attack me now for being honest.

[Tricky]

i dont know. all i know is, there is some part of me, something i cannot explain, that views hetero couples differently then homo couples. this includes lesbian and male gay.

im sorry. its just how i feel.

i guess, i just view opposite sex couples as being more natural. lock and key kinda thing. its as simple as that. got nothing to do with religion or morality.

:o
They are different. We are all different. The ways we are all different are multitude. I don't think that the US should be able to pick out one of the ways that we are different and forbid them to have the same right of what to call their union, while letting people who are different in other ways have that right.

***
ETA:
There is more than one keyhole.

[Thunder]

They are different. We are all different. The ways we are all different are multitude. I don't think that the US should be able to pick out one of the ways that we are different and forbid them to have the same right of what to call their union, while letting people who are different in other ways have that right.

i dont know. i just feel like the hetero couple is just part of our biological instinct. without it, the human species is extinct.

gay or not......homosexual men can still procreate.....even with a lesbian woman. but only with a woman.

im just very science oriented.

but i do NOT doubt the honest and pure love a gay man can feel for another gay man, or a lesbian woman for another lesbian woman.


ugg...me think too much. sleepy time!!

[Tricky]

i dont know. i just feel like the hetero couple is just part of our biological instinct. without it, the human species is extinct.
LOL. I don't think you need to worry about that . If anything our "biological instinct" will kill us through overpopulation. That's the trend, anyway.

gay or not......homosexual men can still procreate.....even with a lesbian woman. but only with a woman.

im just very science oriented.
Then ask Mr. Science this. If science made it possible for homosexual couples to have children by merging two eggs or two sperm instead of egg and sperm, would you still feel it was wrong?

but i do NOT doubt the honest and pure love a gay man can feel for another gay man, or a lesbian woman for another lesbian woman.
Good. That's a start. Now try to empathize with them when they want, honestly and purely, to call themselves "married'. Surely you wouldn't deny them that right, would you?

[Thunder]

Then ask Mr. Science this. If science made it possible for homosexual couples to have children by merging two sperm instead of egg and sperm, would you still feel it was wrong?


its not about "wrong" or "right" for me.

its more natural..and less natural.

now, mind you, i have engaged in all sorts of sexual acts with women that were not intended by the great Creator. :D

but, still, there is only one kind of sex that can make a mini-Parky76.


btw, i also believe that the perpetual existence of homosexuals among the human population, may have some sort of greater biological purpose that we have not discovered yet.

[quarky]

Here's why gay marriage in the U.S. upsets many people:

We are an incredibly repressed society, as per sexuality. The ultimate shame for many would be to have to urinate outside, in view of anyone; or to be caught naked, by a stranger. We can handle the implied sex of marriage, because, disgusting and sinful as it is, it is required for reproduction and the continuation of our species.

Gay marriages bring non-reproductive sex to the fore-front. Gay sex can't make a baby. Its simply sex for pleasure. Prudes of all sorts can't digest that. They can barely handle the notion of sex for reproduction. Anal sex, especially, is a touchy area for the uptight majority. Most would never admit to engaging in it, if they ever had.

Homophobic males have much less problem with gay female sex, imho, and I suspect, if it came down to a division in the proposed new laws, they might be willing to let lesbians slide on the matter. There is no implied anal sex with lesbians. It is less sinful, and can even be titilating if the girls are hot. Straight guys make the laws, for the most part.

Acknowledging male gay sex is threatening to them. It is a turn off.


I've been married a few times. Its easily the gayest thing I've ever done. It doesn't surprise me that lots of gay men would like to do it. More power to them, especially equal rights. A coming out party is in order for the country.

[Thunder]

Homophobic males have much less problem with gay female sex, imho, and I suspect, if it came down to a division in the proposed new laws, they might be willing to let lesbians slide on the matter.

i would have to agree with that. and girl-on-girl action is definitely more pleasurable to the homophobic male eye.

i find it, cute. but i prefer watching straight stuff.

oh, and btw:

"Anal sex, especially, is a touchy area for the uptight majority."

hee hee!!!! :p

sorry, I'm a 32 year old juvenile.

[Tricky]

btw, i also believe that the perpetual existence of homosexuals among the human population, may have some sort of greater biological purpose that we have not discovered yet.

Didnt' you see Jurassic Park? In some species, individuals can change sex during population stress. I believe it has been shown that animals show a higher percentage of homosexual behavior in large populations. The whole gay thing could be a natural pressure valve for releiving overpopulation. It is certainly not uncommon in non-human populations or in most human societies. We don't know the exact mechanics of it yet, but to call it "unnatural" is to call couples who are childless by choice "unnatural".

[Thunder]

The whole gay thing could be a natural pressure valve for releiving overpopulation.

thats what i was getting at..but i didnt say it...cause its kinda mean.

"I am not a human being. I am a biological pressure valve"

:(


"but to call it "unnatural" is to call couples who are childless by choice "unnatural".

hmmm...interesting point there. hmmmm...

[Terry]

Rather than being of itself adaptive, homosexuality is more likely (in my view) to be an unavoidable effect of something that is highly adaptive, like pair-bonding.

[Tricky]

Rather than being of itself adaptive, homosexuality is more likely (in my view) to be an unavoidable effect of something that is highly adaptive, like pair-bonding.

(Sigh) Bondage again? Get your mind out of the garage gutter.

[tyr_13]

(Sigh) Bondage again? Get your mind out of the garage gutter.

"Aww, bondage again for dinner? Can't we get some roleplaying or even some tender lovin? Fine, we'll just order out."

That's what went on in my head when I read, "(sigh) Bondage again?".

[Tricky]

"Aww, bondage again for dinner? Can't we get some roleplaying or even some tender lovin? Fine, we'll just order out."

That's what went on in my head when I read, "(sigh) Bondage again?".
You sick bastard. :D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

i dont believe that a simple title, without any legal differences, is enough of a big deal.

*tap tap* Can anyone hear me?

You just replied to one of my posts, so I know you can see the contradicting evidence I posted.

[quarky]

Gayness could be god's way of minimizing abortion.

[The Nimble Pianist]

i dont believe that a simple title, without any legal differences, is enough of a big deal.

Fair enough. When the CA court heard the case regarding Section 7.5 of Article 1 of our constitution being a "revision", a counselor for the plaintiffs was asked by Justice Joyce Kennard exactly how the constitutional amendment violated equal protection within the same constitution when the only seeming difference between the two enterprises was the title. Mr. Morocco (the counselor to whom the question was posed) answered with a rhetorical question, something along the lines of:

"Justice Kennard, what if the term here being argued today wasn't about marriage or one's sexual orientation, rather about occupational titles and sex?" He essentially asked her specifically if she would feel violated by no longer being called a "justice" or even a "judge" simply because she was a woman. Instead, Morocco proposed, all female judges (including Justice Kennard) be labeled as "Court Helpers", or some other meaningless term, while "retaining all the same rights, privileges, and authority as the male judges. It's merely our tradition for judges to be men."


So allow me to ask you Parky:

How would you feel if your marriage, occupational position, or any other title were given a "separate yet equal" terminology by law?

In fact, may I call your marriage a "Jew Love Bond" rather than a "marriage"?

We know that in this "Christian Tradition" of our wonderful nation, Jews are not granted access to any of the religious sacraments, included but not limited to Holy Matrimony. I assure you that you and your "fellow Jew lover" will have access to all the same substantive rights as married Christian folk.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Also Parky, Fiona asked you a question which either you missed or you already answered and I can't find said answer:

Well I don't think so Parky76. I cannot make sense of your argument because you cannot say the word is irrelevant and then make a case for not using it for all. Can you?

She brings up a good point.

If by your own admission the word should not be so important as to warrant gays and lesbians the legal right to use it, then how could you even argue to protect the term for the sake of tradition? Who protects an unimportant tradition?

[thaiboxerken]

ah, so if one disagrees with you, they automatically MUST be a bigot.

Nope. However, if they want to limit the rights of people based on sex orientation, they are.


very nice. so much for "tolerance".

It's ok to be intolerant of bigots.


President Barack Obama does NOT support a Federal law legalizing gay marriage. Does that make him also a bigot? And if not.....why us and not him?

No, it just means he wants the support of bigots. So, you're correct, there are two reasons to be against gay marriage:
1. Bigotry
2. Pandering to Bigotry

[Thunder]

Nope. However, if they want to limit the rights of people based on sex orientation, they are.

again, I consider rights to be about freedoms and benefits...not titles.

if a man gets a sex change, does he have the "right" to be re-defined as a woman?

in some instances, just some, society gets to decide what we have the right to..and what we do not.

not all "rights" are equal....

[Thunder]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243872307936&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Interesting article about gay marriage. Rabbi basically says the issue is really about scapegoating gays for the problems straight marriages are having.

[thaiboxerken]

again, I consider rights to be about freedoms and benefits...not titles.

This is hardly about a title, it's about recognizing that the domestic partnership between two adults should be considered equal, regardless of gender. Also, I find it disappointing that you'd legislate the "title" based on christian values. I'd rather keep having the country move towards secularism. Tradition is no excuse for legislating christian values.

[linusrichard]

again, I consider rights to be about freedoms and benefits...not titles.

if a man gets a sex change, does he have the "right" to be re-defined as a woman?

in some instances, just some, society gets to decide what we have the right to..and what we do not.

not all "rights" are equal....

The issue needs to be reframed. It's not about a "right" to gay marriage. That's just a convenient way of talking about it. What it's about is whether or not the state is justified in discriminating against gays with respect to marriage. There is discrimination. The discrimination must be justified, or it must be ended. "Tradition" is not a justification.

[ponderingturtle]

mostly for reasons of tradition. in the USA, all religions are given equal rights. but Christianity and Christian symbols and holidays still hold a special place within government. why is that? tradition.

i want gays and gay relationships to have EVERY SINGLE right that heterosexuals and heterosexual relationships have. i just want the title of marriage to be given to straight couples only. for simply the reason of tradition.

The problem is that names have legal meaning. Being married in another country will give you very different rights from treaties than being civil unioned in another country.

You are creating two legal classes of relationships, there will be differences.

I guess gays just don't deserve marriage visa's and legal recognition when in other countries.

[ponderingturtle]

another great idea. this is my 2nd proposal.

get the state out of marriage. just make our legal status "civil union" and let churches issue marriage certificates.

Now all you have to do is get international treaties rewritten with this in mind.

[ponderingturtle]

President Barack Obama does NOT support a Federal law legalizing gay marriage. Does that make him also a bigot?

Yes. He is against the equal treatment under the law of homosexuals.

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage is a title...not a benefit or a right.

It is also a legal status that you do not want homosexuals to have.

I propose that they have EVERY SINGLE RIGHT...as married straight couples. But not the title "married".

Can this actualy work though? You are making to distinct legal status's that you want to be identical, why make two of them then?

Sure marriage is about men owning women, it always has been and always will be, and this makes no in gay marriage, who owns who?

[ponderingturtle]

Strawman.

I fully, 100%, totally, believe that same-sex unions should have the EXACT SAME rights and benefits, of opposite-sex unions.

So does the law in britian actual do this?

[ponderingturtle]

i will accept this analogy when you prove that the laws on the books in the Jim Crow states provided for completely identical protections, rights, benefits, and privelages, for black and white citizens.

Legally they did. The problem was not legal but that in reality they did not, dispite legal equality. But gays will clearly not have this legal vs practical equality issues because you say they will not.

This is not a very convincing position.

[ponderingturtle]

wasn't this based on the evidence of how Seperate but Equal was actually being practised..since Plecy vs. Ferguson was passed?

Exactly they were legaly equal, just like you want civil unions to be legaly equal to marriages, in practice they were not.

In practice no civil union in the world is equal to a marriage, but you are still a true believer in the equalities of civil unions.

[Paulhoff]

When O'Reilly first came on TV, I thought he may be good, but no, I his into myself like the other one on radio.

He just needs to go away.

Paul

:) :) :)

[pgwenthold]

It's only a matter of time. The younger you look in the demographics (http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39#2), the more support you find for gay marriage.

I think the big push to have a Constitutional Amendment now is to make it much more difficult for future generations to legalize it.

Actually, I would say it's more like they have to do it NOW because they won't have a prayer of doing it in the future.

And it is absolutely the case. Anti-gay marriage activists know very well they have to act NOW, because their opportunities are shrinking every year. They know darn well that if they don't overturn the decision in Iowa now, they won't have a prayer in 5 years. The reason being, of course, that the world will not have come to an end, no heterosexual marriage will be harmed, kids will still be just fine, and all of their doomsday claims will be meritless.

Five years from now, if this were to come up in Iowa, most people would still not know any gay married people, or even know someone who does know them. It's really hard to claim that gay marriage will cause the downfall of society if it's been going on for 5 years without being noticed.

Combine that with a younger generation that has grown up with homosexuality being more "out", and there won't be enough people who care.

[pgwenthold]

i dont know. i just feel like the hetero couple is just part of our biological instinct. without it, the human species is extinct.


So there it is.

You want to discriminate against gay people because you "just feel like" they are different.

And you wonder why people call opposition to gay marriage homophobic? You have complained and complained and complained about that accusation, but then, when pushed to the wall, admit that you don't really have a good reason to impose this separate but equal situation other than you "feel" that they are different, and, consequently, I assume, should be treated differently.

Moreover, sadly, your whole "different" quality is based on procreative ability, which, in modern society, has nothing to do with marriage (either way). Or is this another one of those "traditions" that you think should be encouraged - that marriage is for propagating the species? Will you then oppose the right of sterile people to get married?

I'm going to second the comment (by Tricky, I think) that basically said: Every married couple is different. To go after gay couples on the grounds that they are "different" is special pleading. Call them different because they are a gay couple is begging the question (we don't allow gay couples to get married --> hetero marriage is the only game in town ---> thus gay marriage is absolutely different; however, that differentness is predicated on gay marriage not being allowed).

[Tricky]

another great idea. this is my 2nd proposal.

get the state out of marriage. just make our legal status "civil union" and let churches issue marriage certificates.

This would have the effect of forbidding atheist to marry (unless they wanted to be hypocrites).

Are you going to allow the "Priest" at Las Vegas quickie marriage joints to have the power to validate a union as marriage, while forbidding a couple which has been in love for years to have the same validation?

Is that what the "sanctity of marriage" comes down to? You have to get somebody with paranormal beliefs in some entity to sign the papers?

[pgwenthold]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1243872307936&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



Now THIS is funny! Seriously LOL funny.


Now I ask you, what is a bigger threat to heterosexual marriage today? Gay marriage or porn? When a wife waits alone in bed for her husband who is downloading pictures of naked women on his laptop, do you really believe she consoles herself by thinking, "Well at least those gays can't marry"?

However, I am not sure I completely agree with the article. Consider the comment

THE FOREMOST DANGER to marriage in our time is the wholesale degradation of women in the popular culture. In magazines, on TV and especially on Internet porn, women are portrayed as the libidinous man's plaything, not an equal to be respected but a subordinate to be used.

When has the wife ever been "an equal to be respected"? Historically, the wife was nothing but property.

Is the libidinous portrayal of women really the cause of divorce? Or is it, perhaps, the empowerment of women, to allow them to chose to NOT be a subordinate?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Rigid, self-righteous, bible-thumping Christians. Rigid, self-righteous, Koran-thumping Muslims. Birds of a feather.

Yup, a sad contamination of this world. Damn Abraham has lot to say for himself!! :mad::mad:

[Thunder]

When has the wife ever been "an equal to be respected"?


Well, they should be now.

[Aepervius]

i dont believe that a simple title, without any legal differences, is enough of a big deal.

The fact that you openly say with a "civil union" (or whatever you call it) that you are probably gay, whereas if you say you are married nobody would know unless they dig deeper. That was told many time over to you in this thread, why don't you answer to the argument ?

ETA: the simple fact to give it a different name tip off a potential employer for example

[GreyICE]

Okay, for Parky and everyone convinced that they totally have some epic solution by creating a separate institution from marriage that has equal rights and benefits, please point to an example in our history of separate but equal working well. When pointing to womens sports programs (because you're predictable) please do note I will point out both the obvious physical problems of having women and men compete (namely your average 14 year old boy can crush your average 14 year old girl in most form of physical activity involving strength) and the numerous lawsuits.

Also please justify why anyone would ever take an institution that works reasonably well, and try to create a totally separate institution that works just as well, and go through all the time, effort, etc. Then explain why your idea is superior to just shifting the definition slightly, as has been done many times in our history.

[Dorian Gray]

The very act of homosexuality. Not a difficult concept. In the Arab and Muslim worlds, homosexuality is illegal, carriyng severe punishment. Now THERE'S a compelling argument. You know what else happens in the Arab and Muslim worlds? Thieves get their limbs amputated, women must cover themselves and cannot drive, etc., etc., and so on through a virtually endless series of examples that make you look foolish.

[Thunder]

Now THERE'S a compelling argument. You know what else happens in the Arab and Muslim worlds? Thieves get their limbs amputated, women must cover themselves and cannot drive, etc., etc., and so on through a virtually endless series of examples that make you look foolish.

I think he was trying to say that since we don't murder and castrate them, like they do in the Muslim world, gays should be happy in the USA and not rock the boat.

You know, like demanding equal rights and stuff like that. How dare they.... right?

[Tricky]

I think he was trying to say that since we don't murder and castrate them, like they do in the Muslim world, gays should be happy in the USA and not rock the boat.
I don't think he's saying that at all. I think he's saying that because the Muslims do it, then it must be a natural reaction to homosexuality. But we won't know for sure until he gets off of suspension.

You know, like demanding equal rights and stuff like that. How dare they.... right?
For most people it would be obvious, but considering some of your previous points on this topic, I think maybe you ought to include smilies with a comment like that if you want to make sure people know you are making a joke. You can't be too sure that someone might not misinterpret you.

[volatile]

I don't think he's saying that at all. I think he's saying that because the Muslims do it, then it must be a natural reaction to homosexuality. But we won't know for sure until he gets off of suspension.


You think we have much hope of finding out even then?

[Upchurch]

Well, they should be now.
That's weird. Women should be able to buck tradition by not being property, but gays shouldn't buck tradition by using the term "marriage".

You have a selective view of tradition.

[Tricky]

That's weird. Women should be able to buck tradition by not being property, but gays shouldn't buck tradition by using the term "marriage".

You have a selective view of tradition.
Several years ago I was dating a girl who had graduated from Texas A&M. To a Texan, that's all I would need to say but for you benighted foreigners, I'll explain. A&M is a very good school with a very strong conservative "tradition". They were one of the last state-supported schools to allow women to attend and they still have some very sexist rules.

When I was dating Christine, the Aggies (their nickname, both for students and alumni) were tying themselves into knots because the court had ruled that they had to allow women into the marching band. Traditionalists argued that the band had a "military" tradition, which exempted it from state laws. I asked Christine her opinion on this.

Christine said, "They shouldn't allow women in the band. It's a tradition." I gently reminded her that not allowing women in the school was also a tradition, one that had passed it's day. "That's different", she said, though I never really got a clear explanation why it was different.

Tradition is fine for individuals or even independant groups, but there is no reason to encode such "traditions" into law. Isn't Sharia Code based mostly on tradition?

[Almo]

Yeah, really. Gays have not suffered through slavery, violence, hatred and segregation, as has been the shameful history of Blacks.
Are you sure about the bolded part?

Yeah.

:eye-poppi :faint:

[Beerina]

Don't know. What are their reasons for opposing gay marriage? In Obama's case it's his "Christian faith" desire to be elected, yet his "Christian faith" desire to be elected is also opposed to many behaviors he has no problem with human activities that won't significantly affect his chances of election, either way. Why single And that's why he singles out gays if thus it's not homophobia,? in his meme's mind's eye, anyhoo.

Fixed it for you.

[Beerina]

A society has a right to establish and foster its own values and mores. The concept of gay marriage to many is not consistent with traditional values. It does not automatically indicate homophobia.

"Society" has no right to do anything. There are only individuals who possess rights, including the right to assemble peaceably. Gathering together doesn't suddenly grant them some magical new right to shove their views onto other people, stripping away rights.

[tyr_13]

Tradition is fine for individuals or even independant groups, but there is no reason to encode such "traditions" into law. Isn't Sharia Code based mostly on tradition?

Seconded. When you ask someone why something is, and all they can come up with is, "that's how it's always been," you can be pretty sure it isn't useful. Tradition is useful for fun. Like the tradition of birthday parties and such. The tradition of denying someone something that others can have, not so much.

[quarky]

Marriage is a tradition that is steeped in male domination. There ought to be a way to start over, with a new moniker. Equal rights, without the historical negativity.

[Terry]

I was on a jury panel this week, and one of the first questions in voir dire was "Are you married", and I had to reply, "According to the State of California, I am, but according to the Federal Government, I am not". Not the slightest bit confusing for anyone, I'm sure.

[hcmom]

I was on a jury panel this week, and one of the first questions in voir dire was "Are you married", and I had to reply, "According to the State of California, I am, but according to the Federal Government, I am not". Not the slightest bit confusing for anyone, I'm sure.

I would have been very tempted to answer, "Well, it depends....".

[ponderingturtle]

Marriage is a tradition that is steeped in male domination. There ought to be a way to start over, with a new moniker. Equal rights, without the historical negativity.

It is probably too late for this idea. This would have had a lot more intellectual traction 100 years ago.

As it is, it seems to be easiest to keep the term, and not need to rewrite all the laws and treaties and such and make what changes is needed to the laws that regulate it and not throw the whole thing out and start over.

By and large people seem to be happy with the laws and regulations that define the effects of being married.