Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

While I understand the resistance of the mob I will not accept the notion that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has to be scheduled. Yes, you have to draw the line somewhere but where the line is drawn has to be based on sound rational and fairness. One should avoid drawing lines with Tom Delay's pencil.

It is desirable that change be organic but matters of importances shouldn't be sat on. Sometimes issues must be forced (i.e. revolution, civil rights, civil war, etc). You have to confront gay marrige head on instead of tip toeing around it. If you don't the masses will simply assume all is well which is not the case. I am sure when we look back at the gay marriage ban thirty years from now we will wonder how people could favor such blatant injustice.

The French Revolution (a first class clusterfuck) is far too complex to compare to any other revolution let alone the American Revolution. Interestingly one of the contributing factors to the demise of Louis XVI was his financial support of the American Revolution at the expense of his countrymen (bankrupted France).

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am sure when we look back at the gay marriage ban thirty years from now we will wonder how people could favor such blatant injustice.

In thirty years, the cultural atmosphere is going to be so debased and rotten that no one will have the perspective to make the comparison. This has already happened in Europe. You have an entire continent of moral idiots completely unable to distinguish between good and evil or recognize when there is danger at their door.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

In thirty years, the cultural atmosphere is going to be so debased and rotten that no one will have the perspective to make the comparison. This has already happened in Europe. You have an entire continent of moral idiots completely unable to distinguish between good and evil or recognize when there is danger at their door.

I don't know man, you're getting into Buster territory there and that's not a place you want to be. Just in case we happen to turn into that god forsaken continent called Europe I hope we still have places like Idaho, Utah, and Alaska left as a shining beacon of what was.

I am curious, what is it about Europe that disables its inhabitants from being able to distinguish good and evil and what is this danger do you speak of?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I don't get the Quagmire reference.

Age of consent and legal age are largely the same thing, I think.

The tax angle is interesting.

The majority of men would not consider marrying another man either.

Quagmire is a character from Family Guy who went competatively overboard during a golf game. Family Guy - For the Love of Golf - AOL Video

Age of consent and legal age are two different ages. One allows you to vote, the other allows you to have consensual sex. In most states the ages are one and the same. In states like Georgia a 16 year old can consent to a 18 year old or something like that, and its ok. In my opinion the ages should both be the same, and they should remain 18. Going back to my original point, for the most part across this country, 18 is the Legal age for everything except alcohol, and with the exception of places like Georgia you cannot change one without the other. In other words the nation would never allow for 16 Year olds to vote, so the age for consensual sex will also remain in tact.

There are a larger population of men who would marry another man than those who would perform beastiality. At least man on man (as much as it weirds me out) is a union of the same species. A man and a man, if legally permitted, could fill out a joint tax return, because they both could work in the human work force. An animal could not because their is a very defined difference between Animal Rights and Civil Rights.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by EternalEnigma21

gay people should be able to be as miserable as the rest of us. (don't remember where I heard that but its true)

LOL! Yeah maybe they won't be gay (happy) anymore if they got married.

Seriously does it realy matter who is f--ing who, it should only matter who you are f--ing.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

I don't buy this. You are saying that no one ever thought of supporting gay marriage until someone opposed it first. This is dubious. And don't discount the influence of academia. I bet I could get from Harvard Yard to the Massachussets Supreme Court in less than par. If not physically, then certainly intellectually.

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

In addition to legitimizing unions between man/man and woman/woman, recognizing that "marriage" includes same-sex couples is a shortcut to getting those legal rights. Without that, you would have to enact "separate but equal" laws in every single state. I am not a fan of that.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

I think the transaction costs would be exorbitant, since, first, you have to overhall all laws relating to marital rights (e.g., taxes, adoption, joint ownership, etc.) and, second, you would have to have to come up with new ways to handle those situations (e.g., how many people could adopt a child?).

[Beemnseven]

Here's another argument against a gay marriage ban:

Right or wrong, the perception (and in some cases the reality) is that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. So armed with that knowledge, why would we as a society try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a sacred, religious institution which promotes monogamy?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Here's another argument against a gay marriage ban:

Right or wrong, the perception (and in some cases the reality) is that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. So armed with that knowledge, why would we as a society try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a sacred, religious institution which promotes monogamy?

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

With the divorce rate in the US I would agree with you.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

So refute it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So refute it.

I assume you are for banning heterosexual and very much atheist couples from getting married? What about heterosexuals in an open relationship? Cohabitating couples? God knows it's against doctrine to live with someone before you get married.

You're tethering in the brink of absurdity and in violation of so many fallacies it's difficult to list all of them. I would advice you against taking that line of argument, certainly when you are dealing with rational and intelligent people. Remember mon ami, we're playing chess not checkers. A greater emphasis in thinking is required.

[Beemnseven]

Let me clarify my point since I apparently wasn't clear enough -- Many times, social and religious conservatives voice their disapproval of homosexuality because of the perception that they are too promiscuous, that they have a hand in spreading disease. If they truly believe this, then they should be for gay marriage since that will take at least some of the people they have such big a problem with and put them in a relationship which promotes the values of monogamy.

If this is such an absurd argument that is loaded with fallacies then by all means, post them and maybe I will be proven wrong.

[saden1]

I miss read your post, my bad. Please excuse my feeble brain, it works in mysterious ways at times.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by saden1

I miss read your post, my bad. Please excuse my feeble brain, it works in mysterious ways at times.

Ditto. The internets are a fickle master. I thought you were saying that the perception of promiscuity created a fact that could be the basis for an argument. I get what you are saying now.