FREE TAPATALK APP

RandFan · 6th November 2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

Marriage, for one. One group of people should not have special rights that other people don't get. It's one of the principles my country was founded on. If gay people are given the right to get married, then the same rights should be extended to straight people.

Poe?

Alt+F4 · 6th November 2012, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Poe?

More likely....troll.

Dessi · 6th November 2012, 11:56 AM

I support a straight person's right to get gay married and, should the need arise, gay divorced.

Spindrift · 6th November 2012, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

Marriage, for one. One group of people should not have special rights that other people don't get. It's one of the principles my country was founded on. If gay people are given the right to get married, then the same rights should be extended to straight people.

What country is your country?

NoahFence · 6th November 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by corybluefire

What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage???

For: 'Cuz who cares
Against : __________________________

AK-Dave · 6th November 2012, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

More likely....troll.

Not really. I recently encountered someone who thought that allowing marriage equality was somehow giving special rights to gay people. I turned the idea around a little. I'm a straight American and I think I should have the same rights and privileges as any gay American.

Ladewig · 6th November 2012, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Against:
a. Changing the plain historic understanding of marriage

I understand that this is not your position; you are merely citing a popular argument given by those against gay marriage.

The part I cannot get my head around is why people arguing against gay marriage are not embarrassed to steal word-for-word an argument used against interracial marriage 50-some years ago.

AK-Dave · 6th November 2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

What country is your country?

The United States of America. In the founding documents, it is stated that all people are created equal.

Alt+F4 · 6th November 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

The United States of America. In the founding documents, it is stated that all people are created equal.

No, it states that all MEN are created equal (which was a joke, considering slavery). Nothing about women or gay marriage.

Edit: Both the words "people" and "women" were in the vernacular in 1776. Jefferson and the rest of the Continental Congress knew the meaning of both.

Ladewig · 6th November 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I think those who fear they might "catch the gay" have probably already got it.

I can think of no other explanation for why someone who purports to be straight would spend so much time thinking about homosexuals.

I think there are some who are not gay in any way but still adopt this position using then following "reasoning": if gays can't have kids then they will recruit straight kids to their lifestyle, thus my offspring might catch Teh Gey - that's why the gay agenda includes teaching schoolchildren that homosexuality is not an abomination.

ProbeX · 6th November 2012, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Argument for: Human decency. Moral sense of right and wrong.
Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual.

... and rational fear (because sometimes they really are gay)

Ladewig · 6th November 2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

It goes a bit runny once you try to support the "damaging/immoral" bit, but it's still one of the better arguments.

Well, they do like to muck it up with "America was founded as a Christian country and still is a Christian country so the Bible should be the law of the land." Personally, I cannot imagine a more f -ed up country than one which adopted the Bible as the supreme law of the land.

RandFan · 6th November 2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Personally, I cannot imagine a more f -ed up country than one which adopted the Bible as the supreme law of the land.

You act as if such a country might end up like Spain during the inquisitions. What, you think Christians could torture and kill others based on Biblical authority?

ravdin · 6th November 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Argument for: Human decency. Moral sense of right and wrong.
Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual.

If that really is one of your fears, perhaps it's not so irrational.

Spindrift · 6th November 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

The United States of America. In the founding documents, it is stated that all people are created equal.

The Declaration of Independence is not a set of laws. That documents also says that the colonies should be "free and independent states", not one single country. And as others have noted it does not say "all people".

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

Not really. I recently encountered someone who thought that allowing marriage equality was somehow giving special rights to gay people. I turned the idea around a little. I'm a straight American and I think I should have the same rights and privileges as any gay American.

Okay, I'll bite. What rights and privileges do you not have as a straight American?

RandFan · 6th November 2012, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

If that really is one of your fears, perhaps it's not so irrational.

Why?

ravdin · 6th November 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why?

If you're that worried you might be gay, there's likely to be a perfectly rational underlying cause for your fears.

I suppose that might be another argument against gay marriage: more shame and intimidation in our society for nonconformists will lead to more people staying in the closet.

RandFan · 6th November 2012, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

If you're that worried you might be gay, there's likely to be a perfectly rational underlying cause for your fears.

You really are not helping here. What are those perfectly rational underlying causes. Asserting that there is "likely" rational underlying causes doesn't make it true and it doesn't get me closer to understanding you.

Quote:

I suppose that might be another argument against gay marriage: more shame and intimidation in our society for nonconformists will lead to more people staying in the closet.

???

ravdin · 6th November 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

You really are not helping here. What are those perfectly rational underlying causes. Asserting that there is "likely" rational underlying causes doesn't make it true and it doesn't get me closer to understanding you.

As simply put as I know how: if you're afraid you might be gay, then maybe you're gay. At the risk of making a "No True Scotsman" argument, I'm pretty sure that heterosexual people tend not to worry about this.

RandFan · 6th November 2012, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

As simply put as I know how: if you're afraid you might be gay, then maybe you're gay. At the risk of making a "No True Scotsman" argument, I'm pretty sure that heterosexual people tend not to worry about this.

I'm not sure how to be more clear. None of this addresses anything. What heterosexual people worry about or not worry about is entirely irrelevant.

So, one more time, why would a fear of being homosexual be rational? Surely you have some idea.

Recovering Agnostic · 7th November 2012, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I understand that this is not your position; you are merely citing a popular argument given by those against gay marriage.

The part I cannot get my head around is why people arguing against gay marriage are not embarrassed to steal word-for-word an argument used against interracial marriage 50-some years ago.

I think it's a mixture of ignorance, privilege and the chronological fallacy. An argument directly addressing that point would probably say that interracial marriage was different, because interracial marriage was opposed due to bigotry, pure and simple. Whereas gay marriage... er...

Sorry, I can't think like an opponent of SSM for long without the mask slipping. An argument shouldn't necessarily be ruled out just because a similar/identical one was used in an unpleasant cause in the past, and it's possible to construct an argument that this is different, maybe because race is a matter of degree, rather than a bare fact (yes, I know, but this is how most of them think), or because interracial marriage/concubinage has been known throughout history, whereas same-sex marriage hasn't. But it still ends up looking like question-begging, special pleading, and so on, because ultimately, it still comes down to "Those people were obviously bigoted and wrong when they used this argument, but we're right."

Which is a problem for them, because it's still one of the best (or least worst) arguments against same-sex marriage.

mikeyx · 7th November 2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by corybluefire

What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage???

Peter Griffin: the Family Guy " if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, who are we to stop them?"

Meadmaker · 7th November 2012, 05:10 AM

I think a serious answer to the question first requires an answer to the question, "What are the best arguments for and against marriage?"

Why should the government care who you are sleeping with?

truethat · 7th November 2012, 05:11 AM

My sister works in insurance and stated that if gay people get married they will be able to get a family policy and the insurance companies will lose money from them having to pay for two policies.

This was her real and true argument.

Gay Marriage now legal in Maryland. Yippee!

ponderingturtle · 7th November 2012, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think a serious answer to the question first requires an answer to the question, "What are the best arguments for and against marriage?"

Why should the government care who you are sleeping with?

It doesn't. It needs rules and laws to determine who is legally family and people want the protections and rights it provides.

Meadmaker · 7th November 2012, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It doesn't. It needs rules and laws to determine who is legally family and people want the protections and rights it provides.

But why would we, as a society, give a hoot?

So you consider you and another person to be family. Why do I care? Why would the government care? Why would I get rights or protections because I consider someone my family? Why would I need them?

Come to think of it, I have a neice that I consider family, and I don't think either one of us get any rights or privilegs as a result of the fact that my father is her grandfather. Why should I get rights and privileges associated with calling someone a "wife", whatever that means?

The gay marriage movement is driven by a desire for equality, and that's a noble endeavor, but I think it misses something. Marriage has been humming along for thousands of years, but the world has changed in very real ways. On a fundamental, biological, level, we now have the capacity to engage in sex with a very low probability of causing pregnancy. Technology has granted people with low physical strength the ability to be just as productive as someone with great physical strength. That has changed gender roles in the economy. On the social level, we have either rejected belief in gods who care about our sex lives, or we have taken the position that government should remain out of that relationship with one or more deities.

All these changes are very important, and really change the conditions that were so important to the creation of this institution that we know as "marriage". Do we need it anymore, as an official, civil, institution? Should somehow my health insurance be closely connected with another fully functional adult? Why? If you're into that sort of thing, find a priest who will chant as you publicly declare your intention to go to bed with someone, but why should the government change your taxes because of it?

There are a lot of different possible answers to those questions. In my opinion we, as a society, ought to seriously address them. If we could define, in better terms, what this institution of marriage is and why it exists, we could more sensibly ask who should enter into it. I think marriage is one of those things that people don't really think much about. They just take it as a given that it exists and has a particular form. I think it's time we ask ourselves, collectively, whether it ought to exist anymore, and why.

truethat · 7th November 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But why would we, as a society, give a hoot?

So you consider you and another person to be family. Why do I care? Why would the government care? Why would I get rights or protections because I consider someone my family? Why would I need them?

Come to think of it, I have a neice that I consider family, and I don't think either one of us get any rights or privilegs as a result of the fact that my father is her grandfather. Why should I get rights and privileges associated with calling someone a "wife", whatever that means.

If there are any actuaries on here they might be able to explain this to you. But it has been explained to me that even with domestic partnership laws and a will, with the death of a significant other, the surviving "other" has to prove that they were still in a meaningful relationship with the deceased and that if family wishes to, they can contest the will and hold up desperately needed money.

The fact that many bigots reject their children for being gay makes this a horrifying possibility that happens more than you realize.

When a husband or wife dies, the accountant will say "Show me the marriage licence" and then that's that. The will can still be contested of course but it is unlikely that the surviving spouse will not have access to the funds and assets.

TragicMonkey · 7th November 2012, 07:28 AM

Just because for a long time legal systems tied up property rights to your mating history doesn't mean it has to, or should, continue that way. I stuck my monkey in X's walrus for twenty years, so X gets my stuff when I die? What's the necessary relation between those two events?

That marriage has resulted in convenient legal shorthand for other rights and events doesn't mean they're actually an integral part of marriage. Eggnog usually accompanies Xmas but you can have either without the other.

Meadmaker · 7th November 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

But it has been explained to me that even with domestic partnership laws and a will, with the death of a significant other, the surviving "other" has to prove that they were still in a meaningful relationship with the deceased and that if family wishes to, they can contest the will and hold up desperately needed money.

Very true.

Let's think about this, someone dies and has a will and a government official says, "Were you actually shtupping the deceased regularly prior to his demise?"

And people want to keep doing that? When noting that the shtupping doesn't count if the two people are of the same sex, the solution to the problem is to make sure that government understands that, by gum, gay people having sex is just as important as straight people having sex, and government darned well better pay attention to it!

As Monkey noted, we've done it a certain way for a very long time, but that doesn't mean we need to do it that way in the future just because we did it that way in the past. The rules by which we live our life really have changed in very important ways. We need to change our social institutions to reflect the new reality, rather than try to shoehorn more people into an outdated concept of human relationships.

FWIW, I have described myself for several years as a "reluctant supporter" of gay marriage, and that is the reason. I initially opposed it on the grounds that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into those relationships. I eventually decided that, for better or worse (no pun intended), our society is organized around marriage in very important ways, and we had to extend that to gay couples. However, I think that ought to be a short term solution. A better solution would be to really totally reformulate the way government participates in human relationships, especially sexual relationships. When we resolve what we want marriage to be, and why we want it that way, we can sensibly discuss under what conditions two (or more?) people can beome married.

ponderingturtle · 7th November 2012, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

FWIW, I have described myself for several years as a "reluctant supporter" of gay marriage, and that is the reason. I initially opposed it on the grounds that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into those relationships. I eventually decided that, for better or worse (no pun intended), our society is organized around marriage in very important ways, and we had to extend that to gay couples. However, I think that ought to be a short term solution. A better solution would be to really totally reformulate the way government participates in human relationships, especially sexual relationships. When we resolve what we want marriage to be, and why we want it that way, we can sensibly discuss under what conditions two (or more?) people can beome married.

The thing is this is not a contentious issue. People are generally happy with how marriage works which is why it is popular and the only major political dispute about marriage is only about who it can apply to.

ponderingturtle · 7th November 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Just because for a long time legal systems tied up property rights to your mating history doesn't mean it has to, or should, continue that way. I stuck my monkey in X's walrus for twenty years, so X gets my stuff when I die? What's the necessary relation between those two events?

That marriage has resulted in convenient legal shorthand for other rights and events doesn't mean they're actually an integral part of marriage. Eggnog usually accompanies Xmas but you can have either without the other.

And I don't view marriage as being about sex. You can have all kinds of sex inside, outside, or on top of marriage.

It is about forming a family unit with someone who you want to share in many aspects of your life.

TragicMonkey · 7th November 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And I don't view marriage as being about sex. You can have all kinds of sex inside, outside, or on top of marriage.

It is about forming a family unit with someone who you want to share in many aspects of your life.

It'd not "just" sex, it's "mating". As in, taking a mate. Like other animals. Some individuals pair up, for varying lengths of time and varying degrees of intimacy. If we want to stick a bunch of legal stuff in there with that, then why not consider tailoring that legal stuff to fit the actual relationship? The legal junk with marriage still assumes lifelong partnership in all aspects of life. How often does that happen, though?

I'm proposing we make it easier for people to assign or not assign the various property rights, interests, etc to the mate of their choice in the terms that best fit their particular relationship.

ponderingturtle · 7th November 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

It'd not "just" sex, it's "mating". As in, taking a mate. Like other animals. Some individuals pair up, for varying lengths of time and varying degrees of intimacy. If we want to stick a bunch of legal stuff in there with that, then why not consider tailoring that legal stuff to fit the actual relationship? The legal junk with marriage still assumes lifelong partnership in all aspects of life. How often does that happen, though?

I'm proposing we make it easier for people to assign or not assign the various property rights, interests, etc to the mate of their choice in the terms that best fit their particular relationship.

But what about the hundreds on non property rights? Marriage is not primarily about property see prenups and various other ways of keeping property out of a marriage, say making sure your house goes to your kids and not your step kids.

I am for more flexibility with property, but there are 1100 individual effects of marriage. So many of those have nothing to do with marriage.

Ladewig · 7th November 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

I think it's a mixture of ignorance, privilege and the chronological fallacy. An argument directly addressing that point would probably say that interracial marriage was different, because interracial marriage was opposed due to bigotry, pure and simple. Whereas gay marriage... er...

Sorry, I can't think like an opponent of SSM for long without the mask slipping. An argument shouldn't necessarily be ruled out just because a similar/identical one was used in an unpleasant cause in the past, and it's possible to construct an argument that this is different, maybe because race is a matter of degree, rather than a bare fact (yes, I know, but this is how most of them think), or because interracial marriage/concubinage has been known throughout history, whereas same-sex marriage hasn't. But it still ends up looking like question-begging, special pleading, and so on, because ultimately, it still comes down to

"Those people were obviously bigoted and wrong when they used this argument, but we're right."

Unless, of course, we are talking about anti-gay-marriage folks who don't think the anti-miscegenatists were wrong.

But your underlying point stands. I guess that is why so many right-wing talk shows have callers insisting that homosexuality is a choice. Apparently they think it is acceptable to discriminate based on classes if a person chooses to be in a specific class - which is insane because religion and political persuasion are also choices and federal law most assuredly outlaws discrimination based on those choices.

TragicMonkey · 7th November 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But what about the hundreds on non property rights? Marriage is not primarily about property see prenups and various other ways of keeping property out of a marriage, say making sure your house goes to your kids and not your step kids.

I am for more flexibility with property, but there are 1100 individual effects of marriage. So many of those have nothing to do with marriage.

That there are 1100 unrelated side effects of marriage is an argument against reform?!

Caper · 7th November 2012, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

So, one more time, why would a fear of being homosexual be rational? Surely you have some idea.

If you lived in a country where you might be killed for it... I think it would be a very rational fear of you felt you may be homosexual.

Recovering Agnostic · 7th November 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Unless, of course, we are talking about anti-gay-marriage folks who don't think the anti-miscegenatists were wrong.

Agreed, but I'm not sure why such people would be bothered that two views they hold and consider reasonable sound similar. The bigger problem is surely for those who rightly view bans on interracial marriage as a horrifying blot on our collective history.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

But your underlying point stands. I guess that is why so many right-wing talk shows have callers insisting that homosexuality is a choice. Apparently they think it is acceptable to discriminate based on classes if a person chooses to be in a specific class - which is insane because religion and political persuasion are also choices and federal law most assuredly outlaws discrimination based on those choices.

But that doesn't mean that it's never legitimate to discriminate based on a person's choices, just that it isn't considered legitimate in those cases. As a society, we discriminate against people who decide to commit crimes, by locking them up. We discriminate against people who indulge in "vices" like drinking and smoking by making them pay additional taxes based on how much they do these things. An apologist would probably argue that some people are more or less naturally inclined to drink, smoke or steal, just as some people have a greater or lesser inclination to be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't mean they should be treated equally with people who are more virtuous.

Justice and penal consequences often seem to come into religious arguments like this, which is probably a result of seeing gay marriage primarily as a sin against God's law. That's another reason why homosexuality has to be painted as a choice - if it's natural and innate, it throws most mainstream religious views into very choppy waters. Realistically, you either have to go full Calvinist and assert that gay people are damned from birth, or else work out some convoluted way for them to be valued and saved, and explain why God made them to be something He considers an abomination.

Vortigern99 · 7th November 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

So? Is monogamy necessarily good? Not everybody buys into that assumption.

It's a complex issue. I support polygamy, multiamory or whatever term you care to use, provided that all partners agree to that arrangement. But as the brother of a woman who died from complications of HIV/AIDS which she contracted through promiscuous sex, and after reading statistics on the spread of STDs including but not limited to HIV/AIDS, I am firmly pro-monogamy as well. It's a complex issue.

ponderingturtle · 7th November 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That there are 1100 unrelated side effects of marriage is an argument against reform?!

It isn't an argument for it. How many effects does a parent child relation entail? I am sure it is hundreds, yet you don't see people trying to break that status down into individual components unlike the status of marriage.

St.Michael · 7th November 2012, 10:02 AM

I have never thought much about marriage until recently since it's not something that was a choice open to “us” while I was growing up. If my partner suggested getting married I wouldn't object to a Civil Partnership/Ceremony in a registry office. Many of our friends have Civil Partnerships, which amounts to the same thing, they even refer to it as being married.

However it would feel very strange to me standing there with him in a church having our relationship blessed by the notorious Homophobe called "God" who's alleged words in the bible caused me much misery and self loathing when I realised that my natural sexual inclination was very much against what my family had taught me to believe in and which some of them even now find Disgusting/revolting/sinful etc...

Or am I just being difficult or a stick in the mud?

Having said that, a ceremony in a church/cathedral would provide a spectacular backdrop and would make the wedding photographs more interesting.

6th November 2012, 11:40 AM	#41
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by AK-Dave Marriage, for one. One group of people should not have special rights that other people don't get. It's one of the principles my country was founded on. If gay people are given the right to get married, then the same rights should be extended to straight people. Poe?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

6th November 2012, 11:53 AM	#42
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,804	Originally Posted by RandFan Poe? More likely....troll.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

6th November 2012, 11:56 AM	#43
Dessi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 1,942	I support a straight person's right to get gay married and, should the need arise, gay divorced.
	__________________ >^.^<

6th November 2012, 12:16 PM	#44
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,661	Originally Posted by AK-Dave Marriage, for one. One group of people should not have special rights that other people don't get. It's one of the principles my country was founded on. If gay people are given the right to get married, then the same rights should be extended to straight people. What country is your country?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

6th November 2012, 12:20 PM	#45
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,431	Originally Posted by corybluefire What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage??? For: 'Cuz who cares Against : __________________________
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

6th November 2012, 12:29 PM	#46
AK-Dave Muse Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 577	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 More likely....troll. Not really. I recently encountered someone who thought that allowing marriage equality was somehow giving special rights to gay people. I turned the idea around a little. I'm a straight American and I think I should have the same rights and privileges as any gay American.
	__________________ All those who fight monsters inevitably become one.

6th November 2012, 12:31 PM	#47
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,944	Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic Against: a. Changing the plain historic understanding of marriage I understand that this is not your position; you are merely citing a popular argument given by those against gay marriage. The part I cannot get my head around is why people arguing against gay marriage are not embarrassed to steal word-for-word an argument used against interracial marriage 50-some years ago.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

6th November 2012, 12:34 PM	#48
AK-Dave Muse Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 577	Originally Posted by Spindrift What country is your country? The United States of America. In the founding documents, it is stated that all people are created equal.
	__________________ All those who fight monsters inevitably become one.

6th November 2012, 12:37 PM	#49
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,804	Originally Posted by AK-Dave The United States of America. In the founding documents, it is stated that all people are created equal. No, it states that all MEN are created equal (which was a joke, considering slavery). Nothing about women or gay marriage. Edit: Both the words "people" and "women" were in the vernacular in 1776. Jefferson and the rest of the Continental Congress knew the meaning of both.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky Last edited by Alt+F4; 6th November 2012 at 12:42 PM.

6th November 2012, 12:37 PM	#50
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,944	Originally Posted by johnny karate I think those who fear they might "catch the gay" have probably already got it. I can think of no other explanation for why someone who purports to be straight would spend so much time thinking about homosexuals. I think there are some who are not gay in any way but still adopt this position using then following "reasoning": if gays can't have kids then they will recruit straight kids to their lifestyle, thus my offspring might catch Teh Gey - that's why the gay agenda includes teaching schoolchildren that homosexuality is not an abomination.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

6th November 2012, 12:40 PM	#51
ProbeX Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,443	Originally Posted by RandFan Argument for: Human decency. Moral sense of right and wrong. Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual. ... and rational fear (because sometimes they really are gay)
ProbeX Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,443	__________________ I promise to have faith. Just show me the evidence first.

6th November 2012, 12:43 PM	#52
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,944	Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic It goes a bit runny once you try to support the "damaging/immoral" bit, but it's still one of the better arguments. Well, they do like to muck it up with "America was founded as a Christian country and still is a Christian country so the Bible should be the law of the land." Personally, I cannot imagine a more f -ed up country than one which adopted the Bible as the supreme law of the land.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

6th November 2012, 01:11 PM	#53
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by Ladewig Personally, I cannot imagine a more f -ed up country than one which adopted the Bible as the supreme law of the land. You act as if such a country might end up like Spain during the inquisitions. What, you think Christians could torture and kill others based on Biblical authority?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

6th November 2012, 01:15 PM	#54
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,611	Originally Posted by RandFan Argument for: Human decency. Moral sense of right and wrong. Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual. If that really is one of your fears, perhaps it's not so irrational.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

6th November 2012, 01:21 PM	#55
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,661	Originally Posted by AK-Dave The United States of America. In the founding documents, it is stated that all people are created equal. The Declaration of Independence is not a set of laws. That documents also says that the colonies should be "free and independent states", not one single country. And as others have noted it does not say "all people". Originally Posted by AK-Dave Not really. I recently encountered someone who thought that allowing marriage equality was somehow giving special rights to gay people. I turned the idea around a little. I'm a straight American and I think I should have the same rights and privileges as any gay American. Okay, I'll bite. What rights and privileges do you not have as a straight American?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

6th November 2012, 01:24 PM	#56
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by ravdin If that really is one of your fears, perhaps it's not so irrational. Why?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

6th November 2012, 02:36 PM	#57
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,611	Originally Posted by RandFan Why? If you're that worried you might be gay, there's likely to be a perfectly rational underlying cause for your fears. I suppose that might be another argument against gay marriage: more shame and intimidation in our society for nonconformists will lead to more people staying in the closet.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

6th November 2012, 02:44 PM	#58
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by ravdin If you're that worried you might be gay, there's likely to be a perfectly rational underlying cause for your fears. You really are not helping here. What are those perfectly rational underlying causes. Asserting that there is "likely" rational underlying causes doesn't make it true and it doesn't get me closer to understanding you. Quote: I suppose that might be another argument against gay marriage: more shame and intimidation in our society for nonconformists will lead to more people staying in the closet. ???
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 6th November 2012 at 02:47 PM.

6th November 2012, 03:29 PM	#59
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,611	Originally Posted by RandFan You really are not helping here. What are those perfectly rational underlying causes. Asserting that there is "likely" rational underlying causes doesn't make it true and it doesn't get me closer to understanding you. As simply put as I know how: if you're afraid you might be gay, then maybe you're gay. At the risk of making a "No True Scotsman" argument, I'm pretty sure that heterosexual people tend not to worry about this.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

6th November 2012, 03:53 PM	#60
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,970	Originally Posted by ravdin As simply put as I know how: if you're afraid you might be gay, then maybe you're gay. At the risk of making a "No True Scotsman" argument, I'm pretty sure that heterosexual people tend not to worry about this. I'm not sure how to be more clear. None of this addresses anything. What heterosexual people worry about or not worry about is entirely irrelevant. So, one more time, why would a fear of being homosexual be rational? Surely you have some idea.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

7th November 2012, 02:39 AM	#61
Recovering Agnostic Back Pew Heckler Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 396	Originally Posted by Ladewig I understand that this is not your position; you are merely citing a popular argument given by those against gay marriage. The part I cannot get my head around is why people arguing against gay marriage are not embarrassed to steal word-for-word an argument used against interracial marriage 50-some years ago. I think it's a mixture of ignorance, privilege and the chronological fallacy. An argument directly addressing that point would probably say that interracial marriage was different, because interracial marriage was opposed due to bigotry, pure and simple. Whereas gay marriage... er... Sorry, I can't think like an opponent of SSM for long without the mask slipping. An argument shouldn't necessarily be ruled out just because a similar/identical one was used in an unpleasant cause in the past, and it's possible to construct an argument that this is different, maybe because race is a matter of degree, rather than a bare fact (yes, I know, but this is how most of them think), or because interracial marriage/concubinage has been known throughout history, whereas same-sex marriage hasn't. But it still ends up looking like question-begging, special pleading, and so on, because ultimately, it still comes down to "Those people were obviously bigoted and wrong when they used this argument, but we're right." Which is a problem for them, because it's still one of the best (or least worst) arguments against same-sex marriage.
	__________________ My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger

7th November 2012, 04:42 AM	#62
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by corybluefire What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage??? Peter Griffin: the Family Guy " if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, who are we to stop them?"
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

7th November 2012, 05:10 AM	#63
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,467	I think a serious answer to the question first requires an answer to the question, "What are the best arguments for and against marriage?" Why should the government care who you are sleeping with?
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

7th November 2012, 05:11 AM	#64
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	My sister works in insurance and stated that if gay people get married they will be able to get a family policy and the insurance companies will lose money from them having to pay for two policies. This was her real and true argument. Gay Marriage now legal in Maryland. Yippee!
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

7th November 2012, 05:37 AM	#65
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I think a serious answer to the question first requires an answer to the question, "What are the best arguments for and against marriage?" Why should the government care who you are sleeping with? It doesn't. It needs rules and laws to determine who is legally family and people want the protections and rights it provides.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th November 2012, 06:55 AM	#66
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,467	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle It doesn't. It needs rules and laws to determine who is legally family and people want the protections and rights it provides. But why would we, as a society, give a hoot? So you consider you and another person to be family. Why do I care? Why would the government care? Why would I get rights or protections because I consider someone my family? Why would I need them? Come to think of it, I have a neice that I consider family, and I don't think either one of us get any rights or privilegs as a result of the fact that my father is her grandfather. Why should I get rights and privileges associated with calling someone a "wife", whatever that means? The gay marriage movement is driven by a desire for equality, and that's a noble endeavor, but I think it misses something. Marriage has been humming along for thousands of years, but the world has changed in very real ways. On a fundamental, biological, level, we now have the capacity to engage in sex with a very low probability of causing pregnancy. Technology has granted people with low physical strength the ability to be just as productive as someone with great physical strength. That has changed gender roles in the economy. On the social level, we have either rejected belief in gods who care about our sex lives, or we have taken the position that government should remain out of that relationship with one or more deities. All these changes are very important, and really change the conditions that were so important to the creation of this institution that we know as "marriage". Do we need it anymore, as an official, civil, institution? Should somehow my health insurance be closely connected with another fully functional adult? Why? If you're into that sort of thing, find a priest who will chant as you publicly declare your intention to go to bed with someone, but why should the government change your taxes because of it? There are a lot of different possible answers to those questions. In my opinion we, as a society, ought to seriously address them. If we could define, in better terms, what this institution of marriage is and why it exists, we could more sensibly ask who should enter into it. I think marriage is one of those things that people don't really think much about. They just take it as a given that it exists and has a particular form. I think it's time we ask ourselves, collectively, whether it ought to exist anymore, and why.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves." Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th November 2012 at 07:09 AM.

7th November 2012, 07:06 AM	#67
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by Meadmaker But why would we, as a society, give a hoot? So you consider you and another person to be family. Why do I care? Why would the government care? Why would I get rights or protections because I consider someone my family? Why would I need them? Come to think of it, I have a neice that I consider family, and I don't think either one of us get any rights or privilegs as a result of the fact that my father is her grandfather. Why should I get rights and privileges associated with calling someone a "wife", whatever that means. If there are any actuaries on here they might be able to explain this to you. But it has been explained to me that even with domestic partnership laws and a will, with the death of a significant other, the surviving "other" has to prove that they were still in a meaningful relationship with the deceased and that if family wishes to, they can contest the will and hold up desperately needed money. The fact that many bigots reject their children for being gay makes this a horrifying possibility that happens more than you realize. When a husband or wife dies, the accountant will say "Show me the marriage licence" and then that's that. The will can still be contested of course but it is unlikely that the surviving spouse will not have access to the funds and assets.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	__________________ “Now I understand what is so intriguing about Zombie themed movies. When the pile on of stupid begins it's like being trapped in a Zombie movie. Seemingly normal people have suddenly turned into brainless gobs of hostility” ― Dan

7th November 2012, 07:28 AM	#68
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,302	Just because for a long time legal systems tied up property rights to your mating history doesn't mean it has to, or should, continue that way. I stuck my monkey in X's walrus for twenty years, so X gets my stuff when I die? What's the necessary relation between those two events? That marriage has resulted in convenient legal shorthand for other rights and events doesn't mean they're actually an integral part of marriage. Eggnog usually accompanies Xmas but you can have either without the other.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

7th November 2012, 07:44 AM	#69
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,467	Originally Posted by truethat But it has been explained to me that even with domestic partnership laws and a will, with the death of a significant other, the surviving "other" has to prove that they were still in a meaningful relationship with the deceased and that if family wishes to, they can contest the will and hold up desperately needed money. Very true. Let's think about this, someone dies and has a will and a government official says, "Were you actually shtupping the deceased regularly prior to his demise?" And people want to keep doing that? When noting that the shtupping doesn't count if the two people are of the same sex, the solution to the problem is to make sure that government understands that, by gum, gay people having sex is just as important as straight people having sex, and government darned well better pay attention to it! As Monkey noted, we've done it a certain way for a very long time, but that doesn't mean we need to do it that way in the future just because we did it that way in the past. The rules by which we live our life really have changed in very important ways. We need to change our social institutions to reflect the new reality, rather than try to shoehorn more people into an outdated concept of human relationships. FWIW, I have described myself for several years as a "reluctant supporter" of gay marriage, and that is the reason. I initially opposed it on the grounds that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into those relationships. I eventually decided that, for better or worse (no pun intended), our society is organized around marriage in very important ways, and we had to extend that to gay couples. However, I think that ought to be a short term solution. A better solution would be to really totally reformulate the way government participates in human relationships, especially sexual relationships. When we resolve what we want marriage to be, and why we want it that way, we can sensibly discuss under what conditions two (or more?) people can beome married.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

7th November 2012, 07:55 AM	#70
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Originally Posted by Meadmaker FWIW, I have described myself for several years as a "reluctant supporter" of gay marriage, and that is the reason. I initially opposed it on the grounds that government shouldn't be sticking it's nose into those relationships. I eventually decided that, for better or worse (no pun intended), our society is organized around marriage in very important ways, and we had to extend that to gay couples. However, I think that ought to be a short term solution. A better solution would be to really totally reformulate the way government participates in human relationships, especially sexual relationships. When we resolve what we want marriage to be, and why we want it that way, we can sensibly discuss under what conditions two (or more?) people can beome married. The thing is this is not a contentious issue. People are generally happy with how marriage works which is why it is popular and the only major political dispute about marriage is only about who it can apply to.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th November 2012, 07:57 AM	#71
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey Just because for a long time legal systems tied up property rights to your mating history doesn't mean it has to, or should, continue that way. I stuck my monkey in X's walrus for twenty years, so X gets my stuff when I die? What's the necessary relation between those two events? That marriage has resulted in convenient legal shorthand for other rights and events doesn't mean they're actually an integral part of marriage. Eggnog usually accompanies Xmas but you can have either without the other. And I don't view marriage as being about sex. You can have all kinds of sex inside, outside, or on top of marriage. It is about forming a family unit with someone who you want to share in many aspects of your life.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th November 2012, 08:06 AM	#72
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,302	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle And I don't view marriage as being about sex. You can have all kinds of sex inside, outside, or on top of marriage. It is about forming a family unit with someone who you want to share in many aspects of your life. It'd not "just" sex, it's "mating". As in, taking a mate. Like other animals. Some individuals pair up, for varying lengths of time and varying degrees of intimacy. If we want to stick a bunch of legal stuff in there with that, then why not consider tailoring that legal stuff to fit the actual relationship? The legal junk with marriage still assumes lifelong partnership in all aspects of life. How often does that happen, though? I'm proposing we make it easier for people to assign or not assign the various property rights, interests, etc to the mate of their choice in the terms that best fit their particular relationship.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

7th November 2012, 08:37 AM	#73
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,558	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey It'd not "just" sex, it's "mating". As in, taking a mate. Like other animals. Some individuals pair up, for varying lengths of time and varying degrees of intimacy. If we want to stick a bunch of legal stuff in there with that, then why not consider tailoring that legal stuff to fit the actual relationship? The legal junk with marriage still assumes lifelong partnership in all aspects of life. How often does that happen, though? I'm proposing we make it easier for people to assign or not assign the various property rights, interests, etc to the mate of their choice in the terms that best fit their particular relationship. But what about the hundreds on non property rights? Marriage is not primarily about property see prenups and various other ways of keeping property out of a marriage, say making sure your house goes to your kids and not your step kids. I am for more flexibility with property, but there are 1100 individual effects of marriage. So many of those have nothing to do with marriage.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th November 2012, 08:49 AM	#74
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,944	Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic I think it's a mixture of ignorance, privilege and the chronological fallacy. An argument directly addressing that point would probably say that interracial marriage was different, because interracial marriage was opposed due to bigotry, pure and simple. Whereas gay marriage... er... Sorry, I can't think like an opponent of SSM for long without the mask slipping. An argument shouldn't necessarily be ruled out just because a similar/identical one was used in an unpleasant cause in the past, and it's possible to construct an argument that this is different, maybe because race is a matter of degree, rather than a bare fact (yes, I know, but this is how most of them think), or because interracial marriage/concubinage has been known throughout history, whereas same-sex marriage hasn't. But it still ends up looking like question-begging, special pleading, and so on, because ultimately, it still comes down to "Those people were obviously bigoted and wrong when they used this argument, but we're right." Unless, of course, we are talking about anti-gay-marriage folks who don't think the anti-miscegenatists were wrong. But your underlying point stands. I guess that is why so many right-wing talk shows have callers insisting that homosexuality is a choice. Apparently they think it is acceptable to discriminate based on classes if a person chooses to be in a specific class - which is insane because religion and political persuasion are also choices and federal law most assuredly outlaws discrimination based on those choices.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

7th November 2012, 09:03 AM	#75
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,302	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle But what about the hundreds on non property rights? Marriage is not primarily about property see prenups and various other ways of keeping property out of a marriage, say making sure your house goes to your kids and not your step kids. I am for more flexibility with property, but there are 1100 individual effects of marriage. So many of those have nothing to do with marriage. That there are 1100 unrelated side effects of marriage is an argument against reform?!
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.