Voting day, Tuesday, 11/07/06

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:26 pm

Corth wrote:Teflor doesn't believe me when I call him a commie statist.. but every single political position he espouses involves giving the state more power over individuals. Its almost as if the political spectrum wraps around.. and Teflor is so far to the right, he ends up on the left.


Honestly, I just don't have the energy to embroil myself in an argument about something as patently absurd as banning gay marriage to increase tax revenue. That's the sort of "position" put forward by someone who is more interested in igniting the thread into a gridlocked flamewar than actually talking about the issue.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:04 pm

You picked up on that too, eh?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:43 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Corth wrote:Teflor doesn't believe me when I call him a commie statist.. but every single political position he espouses involves giving the state more power over individuals. Its almost as if the political spectrum wraps around.. and Teflor is so far to the right, he ends up on the left.


Honestly, I just don't have the energy to embroil myself in an argument about something as patently absurd as banning gay marriage to increase tax revenue. That's the sort of "position" put forward by someone who is more interested in igniting the thread into a gridlocked flamewar than actually talking about the issue.


The only thing that is patently absurd is to continue calling it a ban on gay marriage.

You know, like that ban on stem cell research. Watch my eyes roll faster than the speed of duh.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:50 pm

Vigis wrote:Forgive my laziness in research, but this website: http://www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm claims to have statistics taken from the US Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics showing that one third of gay and lesbian couples have children. Add to that the the census reports neary 47,000 gay or lesbian households in just New York says that there are by far more than 20,000 children in 20 years.


... What?

47,000 gay or lesbian households in NY

divide by 3

15,666 -> ROUND UP TO -> 15,667

Children are dependants between the ages of 0-18, thus a range of 18 years.

(15,667 / 18) * 20 =




17,408 Children in gay or Lesbian Households in New York over the last 20 years.


Now how many of those are adopted, and not hanger-ons from previous marriages and relationships?

That's what I thought.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 21, 2006 4:53 pm

Sarvis wrote:So Teflor, are the tax revenues lost from gay marriage more or less than the tax revenue lost to Bush's tax cuts?

What spin are we going with this week?


Whatever it is, it can't be as bad as your spin. Tax cuts are targeted to encourage economic growth. Tax cuts to promote something that has no value in promotion, shouldn't be promoted.

The spin is intelligence, judgement, and wisdom.

What have you got?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:02 pm

Corth wrote:Teflor doesn't believe me when I call him a commie statist.. but every single political position he espouses involves giving the state more power over individuals. Its almost as if the political spectrum wraps around.. and Teflor is so far to the right, he ends up on the left.


Only one problem with your thinking there Corth, is that I have promoted no additional power for the government.

Nice try.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:35 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Vigis wrote:Forgive my laziness in research, but this website: http://www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm claims to have statistics taken from the US Census Bureau of Household and Family Statistics showing that one third of gay and lesbian couples have children. Add to that the the census reports neary 47,000 gay or lesbian households in just New York says that there are by far more than 20,000 children in 20 years.


... What?

47,000 gay or lesbian households in NY

divide by 3

15,666 -> ROUND UP TO -> 15,667

Children are dependants between the ages of 0-18, thus a range of 18 years.

(15,667 / 18) * 20 =




17,408 Children in gay or Lesbian Households in New York over the last 20 years.


Now how many of those are adopted, and not hanger-ons from previous marriages and relationships?

That's what I thought.


Ah, I am learning how it works....when you said entire country in your other post, you meant New York thereby proving you are right, since I only quoted statistics for 1 state.

I wonder what would have happened had I chosen statistics for San Francisco or for CA as a whole.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:03 am

17,408 Children in gay or Lesbian Households in New York over the last 20 years

THIS MEANS THAT THERE ARE 17,408 CHILDREN IN GAY OR LESBIAN HOUSEHOLDS IN NEW YORK OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. DID YOU NOT READ THE "Now how many of those are adopted, and not hanger-ons from previous marriages and relationships?"

ADOPTIONS (same sex) ARE CLOSER TO SAY 1200. IN ALL OF NEW YORK _IN 20 YEARS_. ADD ALL THE STATES OF THE UNION ALL 50' O'EM

and you get a pitiful number like 20,000 in 20 years. For the whole USA.



Why do I even have to explain these things?
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:11 am

Vietnam ---> "We will win if we don't quit"???

:?
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"

Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
Xisiqomelir
Sojourner
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Ixarkon
Contact:

Postby Xisiqomelir » Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:55 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:I thought it was we win if we nuke.


Can you imagine if LBJ had pulled that crap? Impossible as it seems, he'd be about 5x as reviled as he is now. It's all a shame really, because he did so much for civil rights. If only Kennedy hadn't brainwashed him, he'd be rembered as a great president.
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"



Gura: ..btw, being a dick is my god given right as an evil.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 22, 2006 4:59 pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:I thought it was we win if we nuke.


Can you imagine if LBJ had pulled that crap? Impossible as it seems, he'd be about 5x as reviled as he is now. It's all a shame really, because he did so much for civil rights. If only Kennedy hadn't brainwashed him, he'd be rembered as a great president.


Sarcasm.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Branthur
Sojourner
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Thief River Falls, MN

Postby Branthur » Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:26 pm

Teflor, stop. I mean really...

OK, sure, can concede the point that you were right on about how many adoptions, but you were obviously wrong on your "What children" comment.

You still haven't answered two of my questions. First, what do you propose we call those who you do not classify as "American Children". Second, no, I'm not going to do your research for you. Give me a link showing your proof on the productivity of children coming from a heterosexual father/mother home as opposed to those coming from a gay/lesbian household. Saying "It's well documented, look at google" doesn't cut it.

Your argument about tax revenues is silly. By that reasoning, we should reinstate slavery because of the lost revenue that the South had just after the Civil War.

And can you cut the stuff with insulting our intelligence because we disagree with you? You're the only one thus far who has decided to be insulting.

Finally - "Specifically to what you said, American children are those who share with the majority of other American children the average American existance. "

How about growing up in America as something shared with the majority of other American children?

edit - one more quick thing. A while back I said I didn't know exactly where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. I still don't. In all of your ranting, you have done nothing to convince me to your point of view.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:43 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:
Corth wrote:Teflor doesn't believe me when I call him a commie statist.. but every single political position he espouses involves giving the state more power over individuals. Its almost as if the political spectrum wraps around.. and Teflor is so far to the right, he ends up on the left.


Only one problem with your thinking there Corth, is that I have promoted no additional power for the government.

Nice try.


You justify infringing upon the rights of individuals to marry the persons of their choice in order to pursue governmental goals such as promoting the birth of 'american children' and generating increased tax revenue. Notwithstanding the fact that the supposed goals you are espousing are idiotic in and of themselves. Commie statist!
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:10 pm

Actually, I just state the reason behind what the government has been doing for centuries.

But I admit, it's hard to spot the difference between a statement of fact and an argument when you're a lawyer.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:11 am

I tend to agree with some of the folks ont he issue of taxes and the like. If anything, they are really the only substantial argument for allowing those outside the norm of American Society, the norm being heterosexual couples, to marry.

I'm not a religious person specifically. The way I see it is what is best for a stable society. I will echo those that have said that a heterosexual couple on average is better than any other situation be it single parent, homosexual "parents" or plural marriages. I, and most folks, believe in stablity and if it isn't broken don't fix it. This is in addition to the general belief that deviant behavior while tolerated should not be forced on society as acceptable.

I am including some links to the push for "plural marriages" which springs from the push for "same sex marriages". Once you start changing what marriage is from what most people understand it to be, you open Pandora's box, so to speak.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15822320/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11786790/site/newsweek/
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 23, 2006 5:10 am

Lathander wrote:This is in addition to the general belief that deviant behavior while tolerated should not be forced on society as acceptable.


Deviant behavior is pretty much anything that the majority of people in a society don't engage in. MUDding easily qualifies as deviant behavior, even among other gamers! Should we propose an amendment to ban mud marriages?

Looking to the matter at hand, how can you say that we are forcing society to accept something? Other than Rylan's petition, it appears most of the people in his state do approve of gay marriage. Society in Massachusetts has decided that same-sex love is not deviant!

Once you start changing what marriage is from what most people understand it to be, you open Pandora's box, so to speak.


That would be a great argument, if people hadn't been arguing in favor of, and practicing, polygamy for hundreds of years longer than gay marriage.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Thu Nov 23, 2006 2:20 pm

Most agree that Polygamy is bad, but how do you feel about it? Society, in general, has punished polygamy, and thankfully, the polygamy movement has failed as gay marriage has in most places. My question is this, would you accept polygamy if you also got gay marriage?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:27 pm

Lathander, is there really any point to your question? You tried to imply that the fight for gay marriage was leading into polygamy, I simply pointed out that polygamy has been around a LOT longer than the idea of gay marriage. There is no connection between the two, and no reason to tie them together as in your question.

Gay marriage is it's own issue that should be considered on it's own merits. It should not be tied together with a straw man.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Thu Nov 23, 2006 4:01 pm

I was discussing this with my husband and he made a very good point if you look at this from the "heart".

With the divorce rate as high as it is, say you meet someone who is 90% your match.. but there is something missing. Most people cheat in marriage because they go looking outside of the relationship for what isn't there. What if that could be solved by another wife? Not only would it benefit the husband that way, but it divies up the "chores" of a family, adds that third "leg" of stability in a family. What if one of the wives gets sick or has a medical condition that doesn't allow them to help as much (ie. cancer etc.). The extra emotional and physical support is there.

There are so many children these days being brought up by day-care or are latch-key children. Marriages with multiple wives would provide a stable environment with a parental figure around at all times.

Also.. anyone else notice that most of the activist groups for Polygamy are run by women? And for the religious angle.. Abraham had HOW many wives? Jacob? (Not a bible scholar {yes its old testament}, but I remember that one from Sunday school.)

Yes, I've seen/heard of some of the darker things associated with polygamy, but there are dark sides to everything including a "normal" marriage.

Not like he would, but personally if my husband approached me about adding another woman to our family I'd give him a "look" and give the resounding NO. But who am I to tell my neighbor they can't if it works for them? More and more the government is encroaching into my house and my bedroom, yet the punishments for REAL crimes are becoming less and less.

Just adding my 2c on the Polygamy thing, as I've already given my opinion on gay marriage. The fight for both is an important thing to keep an eye on as each will have some influence on the other.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Fri Nov 24, 2006 2:45 am

Exactly Lilira. While I completely disagree with the conclusion on the acceptablity of "plural" marriage, I also agree that any kind of liberalization of the definition of marriage creates the opportunity for same sex marriage and plural marriage to become forceed onto society as acceptable.

Sarvis, you have a poor understanding of legal consequences. I'm not saying that gay marriage leads to polygamy as both exist already in other countries and societies. What I would argue is that making gay marriage part of true marriage, which is codified and accepted in society, would lead to plural marriages also being codified and accepted by society.

Let me ask you this Sarvis, are you for or against Polygamy? Do you think that it is wrong or do you think we should be more open to allowing others to live their lives as they want and accept polygamy?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:37 am

I think Corth is the only one here capable of understanding the legal consequences of legalizing something.

However, I could point out that legalizing alcohol consumption has not yet led to legalized marijuana.

Why? Because things need to be considered on their own merits. Frankly, without giving my own opinion on the matter, I'd be willing to be polygamy would have a much easier fight for legalization if anyone were really fighting for it. After all, it has nothing to do with "teh gay" and lot's of guys could see the advantage to having a different girl to sleep with every night.

That's entirely besides the point though. Again, we are talking about a state where the majority of people support gay marriage. This means that for the society in that state it is not deviant behavior, which is to say that the majority of Massachusetts society considers it acceptable behavior. The small group of people who signed a petition against it are the deviants.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Eep

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:23 am

Here are my opinions on some things. Most of my "facts" don't come from the Internet, they come from my three degrees and experience.

I'm a teacher, and I know that for students in general, stability is KEY. A stable classroom environment, rules, plans, schedules, are needed. If one tries to run a classroom with the 'anything goes' mentality, chaos ensues. Like many researchers have stated, kids want to find something solid to hang on to, not something weak.

More and more society has been/is headed towards the "anything goes" side. More things are now "acceptable", some that should be, but a far greater number that shouldn't be. And the trouble is, with more "liberties" come more responsibilities, which society in general does not have, at all. More divorces, more children raised by daycares, stuff that was mentioned in this post in general. More people getting married for the wrong reasons, and, here's what I think is more important, more people getting married with the wrong mentality about what they are really doing.

Morals are going away. Manners are going away. Education has been slowly becoming more and more laughable. So you have this ever growing number of people that are less educated, less well-mannered and that were raised with the "basic" moral tenants. Many have compared it to the fall of Rome, or really, what led to the fall of Rome.

I know most people disagree with most of my opinions, and based on what many have said on this forum, I'm sure most of you do too. Ce la vie. But I "know" that I need to raise my children up with a strong set of morals so that they might have less problems in their lifetime, and really be the best humans they can be. I'm not talking religion here, that's something else, I'm talking morals. Most (normal) Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, will have the same exact list as I do. Trouble is, the media usually focuses on when a small group of one of these goes radically insane, and the rest of society starts stereotyping the whole group based on that microminority.

Trouble is, more people today have a smaller and smaller list of what they consider to be "morals". Too many people have this underlying hatred of things past, and have gone to the other extreme. Sadly, once you start breaking down the true moral fabric of society, it's really game over.

Wonder if I went off-topic?!

Eep

afk, baseball bat is trying to unscrew my wine
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:32 pm

The irony of the whole moral police mentality in our country is our simultaneous abhorrence of the "fundamentalist" theocracies that use law to enforce morality.

We call the kind of government that would rely on radical religious theory backwards and barbaric. We say, of course women should be able to vote and get divorces! They say, look at your permissive country and its moral decay. We say, yeah whatever, you're just jealous of our awesome democracy!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Eep

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 24, 2006 3:33 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote: More people getting married for the wrong reasons


You mean like because society expects them to, rather than because they feel any actual attraction or love for their spouse?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Branthur
Sojourner
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Thief River Falls, MN

Postby Branthur » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:19 pm

Just writing off the top of my head at work..so this might be a bit disjointed..

I say that the rise of gladiatorial sports (football) is leading to the fall of the US, but maybe that's just me. ;)

Seriously though...this topic keeps being drug in various directions, and rightfully so. Does polygamy have anything to do with gay marriage? No, as Sarvis said, it is a straw-man. Kind of. Polygamy and Gay Marriage are different things that _should_ be discussed separately. If Gay Marriage does go through the system and become accepted, will Polygamists use it as an excuse for getting polygamy legalized? Sure. Will it work? Maybe? Maybe not? As was mentioned earlier, just because alcohol is legal, doesn't mean marijuana will be, and thus far hasn't, and doesn't have much footing.

To answer a previous question, what do I think of polygamy? Honestly, I don't get it. Why would a guy want that many women in the house yelling at him to take the trash out or for leaving the toilet seat up? :) Admittedly I don't get the mindframe that sets it up as a good idea. Maybe it's closed-minded of me. Really I have not looked into it, so I don't have a good frame of reference.

But here's the problem, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage, or polygamy, and yet everything to do with it. This is a secular society, supposedly. Separation of Church and State. Freedom of Religion.

And it is both good and bad.

We see what happens when you have a church state. Religious wars, oppression because whatever the religion says is true (or at least the religious leaders), and they take themselves way too seriously. To quote Lewis Black, "These people have no sense of humor, and if you don't have someone in the back going "HA HA", you're screwed!"

On the other hand, we have a secular society, which tries to divorce itself from religion, but that creates other problems. We have a government that recognizes Marriage, which in reality is rather a religious institution. We have people from all of our various religious groups trying to legalize their religion, at the expense of other people's beliefs. There is no moral authority, because primarily moral authority comes from religion.

Teflor has been right, in a way (though the more he writes, the more I disagree with what he's saying). If this is not to be a church-state, we must come up with secular morals that divorce themselves from religious institution. And I don't know if that is possible.

Towards the end of the days of slavery in the US, many preachers would hold out examples of accepted slavery in the Bible as an excuse for it to stay legal. Now, I am not trying to directly compare the plight of the slaves vs. the plight of the gays, but some of the tactics are the same.

Do I think true homosexuality is immoral? You know, the more I think on this issue, the more I don't believe it is. And by true homosexuality, I mean those who are honestly and truly attracted and love one of the same sex, not people experimenting in college. :P You love who you love.

Maybe it's because I view marriage as an institution who's primary purpose is the acknowledgement of devotion to the one person on this earth that you love beyond all others, the desire to be with, aid, and be aided by "till death do you part".

But by the same token, am I in favor of Gay Marriage? I am still on the fence about it, because while I have yet to see any actual proof by anyone that Gay Marriage would destroy society as we know it, lead to India and China taking over productivity (which is happening without gay marriage, thank you very much), or anything else, as I said earlier, Marriage is, before anything else, a religious institution. And as I have said before, while there is nothing against a loving homosexual relationship in the Bible, there is also nothing in the Bible that would support the blessed unification. Nothing against, and nothing for. Where does that leave us?

In a secular society.

Probably rambled on too much there, and I'll probably change my mind on half of it by the time this evening rolls around, but just thought I'd toss that out there.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:09 pm

There are a few problems with justifying a gay marriage ban as a religious institution. Yes, a lot of the problems have to do with separation of church and state; yet it is not a simple matter of fearing theocracy! Remember that the founders of our country came over here fleeing religious persecution. Put simply, their beliefs, while Christian, were not exactly what the Catholic church wanted them to believe. Because of this they made the first amendment say that the government could not make any laws preventing us from practicing our religion.

Now think about that, and answer this question: If a religion believed homosexual unions were holy on the same level as heterosexual unions, wouldn't a law against such be unconstitutional?

We know Christianity doesn't allow for gay marriage, but what about Buddhism? Scientology? Wicca? Or any other obscure religion? Such a law would then be a direct infringement on their right to practice their beliefs.

Now, we have to add in to this that religion is by no means monopolized by religion itself, let alone Christianity. Any atheist who wants can go to a Justice of the Peace and have a non-religious ceremony. How can there be a defense of marriage on religious grounds when there can be purely areligious marriages?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:35 pm

I'm confused abou this "straw man" agrument about polygamy. I posted two links to stories about folks interested in plural marriages using the tactics of gay marriage supporters. In what way do the tactics for gay marriage not apply to plural marriage? And, if you are for gay marriage, how can you not be for plural marriage? Personally, if you believe that everyone has a right to do what they want, then doesn't that apply to everyone?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:50 pm

Lathander, polygamy is evident as a straw man in that you have completely ignored all other points made about <i>gay marriage</i> in favor of trying to press the polygamy point. Clearly you have some "winning point" to make baed on polygamy and want me to pick a stance on it, so that you can win the argument. The problem is you'd be winning the wrong argument.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:50 am

So what were the reasons again for gay marriage and how do they not apply to other equally deviant forms of alternative marriage such as plural marriage.

You're correct, you can not win the gay marriage argument without also winning the plural marriage argument which you seem to be against.

I'll give Lilira credit, and Lilira correct me if I put words in your mouth. She seems to support letting folks have the kind of marriage they want whether it is straight, gay or plural. That logically makes sense if you believe that people should be able to live in a situation and want to force society to recognize and accept that lifestyle.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:59 am

So your tactic for the rest of this thread will be to ignore anything people say about gay marriage?

I'm out, then. I don't need to deal with any more Teflors.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:36 am

Who's ignoring anything said? I and most folks do not believe in changing the accepted definition of marriage. If you have some reason that the definition of marriage should be changed, I'd like to know why that reason only applies to one alternative type of marriage and not to another. It really doesn't sound that tough to ask. As I said, I do not see how one can be for gay marriage and not for other alternative marriage types. Maybe I'm wrong about that and if so, I'd like to hear why I'm wrong.

I will give you credit though, at least you were not some retard that tried to insinuate I oppose gay marriage because I have some secret fear of or desire for homosexuality.



"No, I opposed one War [the War of 1812]. That was enough for me. I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine."
Justin Butterfield
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 25, 2006 1:57 am

Lathander wrote:Who's ignoring anything said?


Well you did just ask me to repeat basically everything we've been saying about gay marriage...

I and most folks do not believe in changing the accepted definition of marriage. If you have some reason that the definition of marriage should be changed,


I'll let St. Augustine answer this:

[Polygamy] was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful.


Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife living


In other words, in the Old Testament the definition of marriage DID allow for polygamy, and though less common polyandrous unions have also been known. The current definition is in fact the result of changing the definition of the word to suit the society of the times... which is that of Rome. If the current definition is due to a secular modification of the original definition, why can we not redefine the term today?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Branthur
Sojourner
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Thief River Falls, MN

Postby Branthur » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:11 am

Here's the issue though Lath. Not everyone believes that they are one in the same, including myself. Gay Marriage and Polygamy are two different things. And I'm going to back off of one of my comments for a moment, just for the sake of argument.

Why is Gay Marriage immoral? Why is Polygamy immoral?

The terms "morality" "immoral" "deviant", etc keep getting thrown around, but the discussion is never brought up as to WHY these things are classified as this.

And honestly, I'm not looking for an answer that is "right" or "wrong"...it's more of a question to know where you're coming from. You've said previously your stance on it from a "deviant" standpoint, and while I'm not sure that I agree with you on it, I do understand where you're coming from with it.

Part of the issue is that you view gay marriage and polygamy as one and the same issue, and not everyone agrees with you on that. Sarvis claims it's a staw-man. You say it isn't. And as I've said, I'm in-between the two of you. But it does seem to be a distraction from the central issue being discussed as opposed to talking about the merits and problems with homosexuality and gay marriage.

Marriage is a problem because as a society we have a dual standard for what it is. I mentioned the religous aspects previously, as many arguments against homosexuality come from religious standpoints. Sarvis was correct in bringing up that even as a society we recognize the joining of two people in "marriage" without religious connotation for people who are athiest, etc.
Branthur
Sojourner
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Thief River Falls, MN

Postby Branthur » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:17 am

There is this as well. What defines a "family" is different, and changes through the world through different times. Tribal communities, extended family homesteads (children, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins), industrialization has largely created the smaller family units as families have spread out throughout within and between countries.

I am neither saying this in support or against anything. Throwing it out as a talking point more than anything.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Nov 25, 2006 2:55 am

I think Adriorn said it very well earlier. Any society has to have its set of morals that it holds dear to it. These morals keep the society orderly and in good working order. Changing these steering beliefs has the potential of throwing things out of alignment, making things worse.

This williness to change things without fully considering the consequences is one of the fundamental differences between a liberal and a conservative. A conservative wants to keep things the way they are unless they are certain to improve things. By contrast, a liberal is more willing to experiment with things based on a feeling.

I'll ask the mirror question, why are gay marriage and plural marriage not related? Earlier in this thread, I said that some sort of civil union should be made for gay folks, but after reading those articles on MSNBC about polygamy supporters joining up with gay marriage supporters like the ACLU, I believe I have to change my opinion. From a emotional standpoint, I understand the gay position, but I also know that road leads to other things as well because of the legal consequences.

These alternative forms of marriage are immoral because they attack the very fabric of the "family" here in America. Already we have 40% of all kids being born out of wedlock, and a horrible 70% of black newborns are born out of wedlock. What does this say about how we treat marriage? And now we want to water down marriage by changing its definition? Why change it? For a small minority that wants to force society to accept them? I worry that our kids will think that homosexuality is an equal lifestyle choice to a normal life.

See, some folks want to see the word in gray with no right and no wrong. Most folks don't see it that way though. If marriage can mean anything (gay or plural), then it means absolutely nothing. In addition, marriage is recognized by the state even though it is more a religous construct because it is the best way to protect children and raise them to be productive people. This is in society's best interest.

Now the argument will be, "But gay folks can raise kids too." Many disagree with this being a good thing, but personally, I'd rather have someone raise a kid if they had no parents and no other people were available to raise them.

Sarvis, you seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, to believe that plural marriage should be allowed to exist. I'm making some assumptions based on your post, but you didn't say straight out what you thought, so I kind of had to interpret. This is part of the anything goes and do whatever makes you happy mentality.

Largely, I think that bashing religion is missing the point. Religion has always been used by societies to instill their beliefs into people. The religion changes with societies beliefs, and most folks do not believe that marriage should be changed. Here is a list of the states which have decided that marriage should be defended and not watered down.

1. Alabama (2006 by 81%)

2. Alaska (1998 by 68%)

3. Arkansas (2004 by 75%)

4. Georgia (2004 by 77%)

5. Hawaii** (1998 by 69%) -- ** Hawaii's Amendment did not actually define marriage, but instead reads "The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples." Hawaii Const. Art. 1, § 23.

6. Kansas (2005 by 70%)

7. Kentucky (2004 by 75%)

8. Louisiana (2004 by 78%)

9. Michigan (2004 by 59%)

10. Mississippi (2004 by 86%)

11. Missouri (2004 by 71%)

12. Montana (2004 by 66%)

13. Nebraska (2000 by 70%)

14. Nevada (2002 by 67%)

15. North Dakota (2004 by 73%)

16. Ohio (2004 by 62%)

17. Oklahoma (2004 by 76%)

18. Oregon (2004 by 57%)

19. Texas (2005 by 76%)

20. Utah (2004 by 66%)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:00 am

Remember the movement for womans suffrage? Black suffrage? Equal rights? How about interracial marriages, in which conservatives ALSO tried to use Polygamy as a bogeyman?

All of those were opposed by conservatives because of the "harm they could cause society." Our country is still standing, and stronger than ever.

On the contrary to your veiled insult towards liberals, I would point out that it is the pro-gay marriage people in this thread who have posted evidence while the anti-gay marriage posters have only shown fears. You are afraid that gay marriage would weaken marriage, and cite divorce statistics which merely show how bad things already are in that respect. You do not, however, bring any evidence which shows that gay marriage would worsen those numbers! In fact, I would argue that the social acceptance of homosexuality in general would <i>reduce</i> the divorce rate. You might ask why, and the answer is that a great number of homosexual men currently marry out of a sense of obligation or fear. I can't find statistics on it, but I'd bet <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/city_life/thersday/story/323652p-276658c.html">these</a> marriages seldom end well.

Furthermore, we have many orphans both in this country and around the world who would benefit from a family environment. Remember the links I posted on the first page? Those studies found that children raised by same sex parents were just as well off as children raised by heterosexual parents... which seems a vast improvement over being raised as an orphan! You like to say we should protect families, but here is a golden opportunity to _create_ families for those who currently lack them!

You need to at some point explain to us <i>how</i> allowing gay marriage will cause harm to straight marriages. Do you know how, or do you just "feel" that it would?

Frankly, if you are really interested in protecting families and marriages, and yes I mean actual real life marriages as opposed to the definition of a word, you are barking up the wrong tree. There are a LOT of challenges to marriage and family in our society. A need for lower income families to maintain two or more jobs, financial difficulties in general, long working hours and other stress factors all contribute to high divorce rates and improper child rearing. In fact, I would argue in general that a lot of the "moral loosening" we see today is due to the increasing pressure on families to have everybody working and productive. If the husband works during the day, and the mother works at night while the teenage son works part time when are they supposed to engage in the communication that is so essential to both marriage and child rearing. (Yes, fiscal conservatives this is part of the reason I disagree so strongly with you on economic matters.)

I also noticed you believe homosexuality is a choice, however I would simply point out that this is merely the popular religious view of the matter. Aside from the scientific evidence supporting it as an inborn trait, I honestly can't see any reason someone would _choose_ to be gay! Would you CHOOSE to be hated and feared by your peers? Would you choose to risk hate crimes? Choose to be a poorly regarded and often abused segment of society?

I sure as hell wouldn't, and neither would the many closeted homosexuals in the world.

Now, as for polygamy I have no real stance on the matter. While the "anything goes" viewpoint, and frankly that's a misnomer, makes a certain amount of sense I have heard that the arrangement is often detrimental to the women involved. I really don't know enough about it to come to a conclusion, let alone argue it. So can we drop that now, or do you want to go back and try banning interracial marriages now too?


<b>Teflor</b>

Found this while writing the response to Lathander:

Congressional Budget Office wrote:Together, EGTRRA and JGTRRA will reduce the number of couples incurring marriage penalties and increase the number receiving bonuses between now and 2010. JGTRRA provided relief from marriage penalties for 2003 and 2004 in the form of a higher standard deduction and broader 15 percent tax bracket for married couples. For 2005 through 2010, that relief is first reduced and then reinstated under the provisions of EGTRRA. Because of those changes and rising real (inflation-adjusted) incomes, marriage penalties would dominate during that period, and same-sex marriages would increase revenues by between $200 million and $400 million each year. After 2010, the expiration of all of EGTRRA's provisions would raise marriage penalties further, and revenues would be $500 million to $700 million higher each year than they would be if same-sex marriages were not recognized. (Permanently extending the marriage-penalty provisions in EGTRRA would reduce those revenue gains to less than $400 million per year after 2010.) - http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5559&sequence=0
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:22 pm

*insert chuckle*

Gosh guys.. this thread really exploded from my simple reminder to go out and vote.

Honestly, some of the information I've seen here is stuff I haven't bothered to search out for myself, and yes I've input a couple of comments. Thanks for keeping it clean and the flames to a minimum.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:40 pm

The funniest thing is watching the advertising at the bottom of the page change by what we type.
Lilira
Sojourner
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 pm

Postby Lilira » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:43 pm

Lathander wrote:The funniest thing is watching the advertising at the bottom of the page change by what we type.


*grin* My version doesn't show them.
~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'
Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'
You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'
Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Suzalize group-says 'oh, eya's over weight i bet'
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:43 am

The polygamy argument, simply put, is the argument that making such a significant change to the instiutions of society is not a change government has the power to make without a large amount of research and proof that it would indeed improve society.

Good governance demands research and solidly grounded reasoning.

"Because I'm offended," and it's sister "because I feel like I should benefit more," are not very good reasons to potentially alter the fabric of society.

Once you take away the "you're a homophobe" arguement, Gay Marriage proponents don't have very much at all.

To Sarvis:

CBO wrote:For 2005 through 2010 ... marriage penalties would dominate during that period ... same-sex marriages would increase revenues by between $200 million and $400 million each year.


So due to punishment of marriage between 2005 and 2010, we get more from (any) married couples? and yet,

CBO wrote:For almost all married couples, filing jointly rather than separately results in lower tax liability.


Now how are overall revenues going to be raised if almost all married couples filing jointly have lower tax liability?

Furthermore:

CBO wrote:Taking into account the age mix and expected mortality of same-sex couples, CBO estimates that additional Social Security benefits would total about $50 million in 2005 and grow to $350 million in 2014 (equivalent to $250 million in today's dollars, adjusted for intervening wage growth and cost-of-living increases).


$250 million in additional Social Security costs in the next 8 years.


And how can we forget:

CBO wrote:The estimates are highly uncertain for several reasons.


Good governance requires good research.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sun Nov 26, 2006 4:10 pm

Yeah that's great Teflor, Social Security goes up a bit... but your argument was a loss of tax revenue, which means you were simply wrong. Furthermore, while SS will cost more, just about every other social welfare program saves money!

It looks like this:

Social Security: +$250 million
Federal Employees Health Benefits: +$30 million

SSI: -$100 million
Medicare : -$400 million


Overall: -$220 million in saved taxpayer dollars, combined with an extra $400 million in tax revenue.

Hell, apparently legalizing gay marriage is the fiscally responsible thing to do!

At least according to the country's budgeting office, and frankly Teflor I'll take their estimates over yours any day of the week.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Reply

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:52 pm

Sarvis wrote:Our country is still standing, and stronger than ever. On the contrary to your veiled insult towards liberals, I would point out that it is the pro-gay marriage people in this thread who have posted evidence while the anti-gay marriage posters have only shown fears. You are afraid that gay marriage would weaken marriage, and cite divorce statistics which merely show how bad things already are in that respect. You do not, however, bring any evidence which shows that gay marriage would worsen those numbers!


I would point out that it has been the pro-gay marriage people who have attacked, criticized, or mocked the Bible. No obviously anti-gay marriage person that I could find even brought the Bible up. Maybe I missed 1.

Sarvis wrote:I also noticed you believe homosexuality is a choice, however I would simply point out that this is merely the popular religious view of the matter. Aside from the scientific evidence supporting it as an inborn trait, I honestly can't see any reason someone would _choose_ to be gay! Would you CHOOSE to be hated and feared by your peers? Would you choose to risk hate crimes? Choose to be a poorly regarded and often abused segment of society?


Last time I checked, since finishing my degree in Psychology, homosexuality was on the DSM (the Psychologist's Bible) up until 1973, when many believed it was 'forceably' removed by gay activists. You can do your own research on it on the Internet if you so please. Many argued it should be removed because in reality, homosexuals really weren't having any issues with themselves in society, they were happy and functioning perfectly, so many believed it was in error to clasify it as a disorder or deviation. Many argued differently, saying the very nature of homosexuality was not an overt disorder, but a traumatic experience over an extended period of time, which changed the person's very nature. Basically, they didn't "choose", and that was the reason many wanted it to remain as a disorder. Recently many other "deviations" have been removed as well; if you do some research I'm sure more have been removed since I finished the degree.

Scientific research, likewise, has gone either way. One of the most famous studies showed how the hippocampus of a homosexual was different than that of a heterosexual. What the study could not prove, however, was whether it was something that came from birth, or whether it changed over time. Nature vs nuture, etc.

So what we should say is that there isn't enough proof either way, plain and simple. Some want to read evidence where there is none, and others go more by their emotions/beliefs.

And that, basically, is part of the trouble many have with allowing the idea of gay marriage to occur. The other part is the religious aspect. We don't really know either way. Kinda goes with Teflor's "big changes need big proof" statement.

Personally I think there are MUCH greater issues at hand that must be discussed at once in order to make sure the country does not go down Rome's route.

Eep
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Reply

Postby Sarvis » Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:45 pm

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I would point out that it has been the pro-gay marriage people who have attacked, criticized, or mocked the Bible. No obviously anti-gay marriage person that I could find even brought the Bible up. Maybe I missed 1.


How many people did you see attacking the Bible in this thread again? In fact, it was one of the gay marriage <i>supporters</i>, Ragorn, who first mentioned the Bible as support that homosexuality <i>was a sin</i>.

I've definately heard many people cite religion, if not the Bible itself, as a reason to ban gay marriage. In fact, if you feel like searching for the last thread on the issue the last couple pages were all about a religious justification of this discrimination.

Sarvis wrote:Last time I checked, since finishing my degree in Psychology, homosexuality was on the DSM (the Psychologist's Bible) up until 1973, when many believed it was 'forceably' removed by gay activists. You can do your own research on it on the Internet if you so please. Many argued it should be removed because in reality, homosexuals really weren't having any issues with themselves in society, they were happy and functioning perfectly, so many believed it was in error to clasify it as a disorder or deviation. Many argued differently, saying the very nature of homosexuality was not an overt disorder, but a traumatic experience over an extended period of time, which changed the person's very nature. Basically, they didn't "choose", and that was the reason many wanted it to remain as a disorder. Recently many other "deviations" have been removed as well; if you do some research I'm sure more have been removed since I finished the degree.

Scientific research, likewise, has gone either way. One of the most famous studies showed how the hippocampus of a homosexual was different than that of a heterosexual. What the study could not prove, however, was whether it was something that came from birth, or whether it changed over time. Nature vs nuture, etc.

So what we should say is that there isn't enough proof either way, plain and simple. Some want to read evidence where there is none, and others go more by their emotions/beliefs.


Yes, and if you read closely I backed off of saying science favored one side or the other and offered a logic-based reason for not choosing homosexuality. That said, both your psychological AND scientific scenarios seem to have concluded that it is not a choice... they are just debating whether or not it is caused by genetics or environment. If it's genetic, the parallel is easily interracial marriage. If it is environmental (nurture) then the parallel would be banning anyone raised Christian from marriage. :P (Sorry, couldn't come up with a better example.) Would either of those be "right?"

And that, basically, is part of the trouble many have with allowing the idea of gay marriage to occur.



So people have trouble letting those who are genetically different, or mentally altered by their environment, from sharing in the same rituals they do?


We don't really know either way. Kinda goes with Teflor's "big changes need big proof" statement.


That's not really what he said, and frankly I'd favor your interpretation more. However, this is life: there's no such thing as proof.

Personally I think there are MUCH greater issues at hand that must be discussed at once in order to make sure the country does not go down Rome's route.


I agree, this shouldn't be an issue. People should learn to mind their own business and focus on important things, rather than try to justify forcing their religious beliefs onto the public. That doesn't just mean gay marriage either...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Branthur
Sojourner
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Thief River Falls, MN

Re: Reply

Postby Branthur » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:14 am

Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I would point out that it has been the pro-gay marriage people who have attacked, criticized, or mocked the Bible. No obviously anti-gay marriage person that I could find even brought the Bible up. Maybe I missed 1.


That would be me that you missed. I have stated several times that I am on the fence about actual gay marriage, but I would point out that disagreeing on points of interpretation of the Bible is NOT "attacking, criticizing, or mocking the Bible." Anyone who knows me could tell you that I am a devout Lutheran. But that does not mean that I do not know from where my belief comes, and recognizing the fact that many points of the Bible are mistranslated, misinterpreted, and cherry-picked out of context to the favor of whomever is preaching that Sunday in whatever church you belong to.

Not a single person, either for or against homosexuality and/or homosexual marriage has said _anything_ derrogatory against The Bible, The Torah, or any other religious manuscript.

In general, some people on the side of gay marriage have said derrogatory things about the Bible. By the same token, many people against gay marriage have used the Bible as an excuse to be derrogatory and discriminatory against homosexuals.

teflor the ranger wrote: Once you take away the "you're a homophobe" arguement, Gay Marriage proponents don't have very much at all.


*looks at 3 pages of posts where nobody has said "you're a homophobe"*

Wrong.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: Reply

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Nov 28, 2006 12:44 am

Branthur wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote: Once you take away the "you're a homophobe" arguement, Gay Marriage proponents don't have very much at all.


*looks at 3 pages of posts where nobody has said "you're a homophobe"*

Wrong.


Three pages of posts and not a single argument for gay marriage.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:31 am

The problem of a hard coded between hetero or homo is that it does not explain things like bisexuality. If it is on or off, then you really couldn't have a bisexual. In addition, this simplified discussion doesn't incorporate other sexual confusions such as transgender people or crossdressers not to mention the submissive and dominating personalities confused about their sexual roles. When you look at it in a broader range, the homosexual just becomes another deviant from the normal condition.

Personally, I believe these sexual confusions are some kind a chemincal imbalance, mental disorder, identity crisis or simply a poor choice. It may even be a combination of all or some of those.

Let's have some fun though with my earlier comments on polygamy though. Let's take the bisexual. Now the same folks that are championing the gay marriage issue will be the ones championing the polygamy issue. Why if gays are allowed to get marriage can't bisexuals marry one of each sex? Is that really fair to force them to choose? I'd like to see one person that is for gay marriage say that they are definitively against polygamy for a bisexual person.

While we should tolerate crossdressers, transgender, gay, and bisexual folks, most would agree society and each person should not be forced to accept them.

PS Actually I believe one guy did call me a homophobe and did insinuate that I had some deviant proclivity, which seems to be one of the standard attacks by the gay lobby. It's odd, they feel comfortable using their sexual orientation as a weapon or a putdown because they know it is not accepted. Makes me chuckle.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:37 am

Teflor,

First, I'll state my argument in favor of gay marriage in simple terms:

The government should recognize the committment of any two adults who love each other, not just those who are of opposite genders. It is discriminatory to allow a man and a woman to marry, but not a woman and a woman. A few dollars of lost tax revenue, or adherence to tradition for its own sake, does not justify that type of discrimination in my book.

A more complicated basis for my argument lies in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. I will not really go into great depth about this. Needless to say, I do not believe gay couples are receiving 'equal protection under the law'. I do not know how the courts have justified this type of overt discrimination. Granted, I am not too interested in the subject, so I really haven't bothered to read the relevent cases.

Also, from society's perspective, it is important to have a framework for the dissolution of committed relationships. Hence, the area of jurisprudence called "matrimonial law." It would be very difficult to plan an equitable dissolution of a marriage in advance based purely upon contract law principles. Denying gay couples the protection of laws designed to govern the dissolution of their relationship hurts society in the same way it would hurt society if there was no framework for heterosexual couples to dissolve their marraige. There are gay couples with shared children and assets, and contract law is simply not built to equitably distribute these items upon the dissolution of a relationship.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:47 am

The application of the 14th amendment to this issue is just the unintended legal consequences I was talking about a couple of pages back in this thread. Here is something created over 130 years ago being applied to something that was not even considered at the time. Hell, gay marriage hasn't been an issue because the simple act of having gay sex was a crime in and of itself. I agree with the decriminalization but not with the forced acceptance.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 am

Corth wrote: It would be very difficult to plan an equitable dissolution of a marriage in advance based purely upon contract law principles.


:blink:

Did I really just hear a Libertarian say Contracts weren't good enough to handle something?

Lathander wrote:The problem of a hard coded between hetero or homo is that it does not explain things like bisexuality. If it is on or off, then you really couldn't have a bisexual.



People aren't binary Lathander. Look at skin color, there are states between pure black and albino! Why must you assume sexuality is "on" or "off" if skin color has thousands of shades?


In addition, this simplified discussion doesn't incorporate other sexual confusions such as transgender people or crossdressers not to mention the submissive and dominating personalities confused about their sexual roles. When you look at it in a broader range, the homosexual just becomes another deviant from the normal condition.


Does anyone want to take a guess on whether or a post-op transexual can marry someone from their former gender? Apparently the answer is <a href="http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=14702&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm">yes</a>. Moreover, if one parter in a heterosexual marriage gets a sex change the marriage is still considered valid.

Again, I'm ignoring the polygamy crap as a straw man. Remember, that was supposed to happen automatically when interracial marriages were allowed... along with the rest of the breakdown in society!

While we should tolerate crossdressers, transgender, gay, and bisexual folks, most would agree society and each person should not be forced to accept them.


Let's reword this and see if it still sound ok:

While we should tolerate black people, most would agree society and each person should not be forced to accept them.

Can anyone else easily imagine the KKK saying something like that?

Why don't we just have laws preventing gays from using public transportation, using public waterfountains... heck, they should have their own bathrooms... right?

Can you really not see how you sound when you say things like that?

Here is something created over 130 years ago being applied to something that was not even considered at the time.


Here's another crazy concept that took a over a hundred years to set in:

All men are created equal.

I guess it was "unintended consequences" to allow women and black people the same rights as white landowners, right? Well, yes... but that doesn't mean we aren't better off for it.

Just like we would be better off with gay couples caring for orphaned children, and with extra tax revenue and lowered welfare costs. There's your reasons FOR gay marriage, aside from the whole civil rights thing.

I agree with the decriminalization but not with the forced acceptance.


Yeah, some people STILL can't accept that black's are our equals. That doesn't mean Law should be as bigoted.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:59 am

Sarvis,

I don't think that my statement is inconsistent with Libertarianism. Contracts work great to govern relationships between people who are dealing with each other at arms length. A contract, presumably executed prior to the marriage, is not the best way to determine which spouse should retain custody of the children. I doubt many Libertarians would say otherwise.

Another example. If my wife and I purchase a house, but I take title individually, should my wife (who has helped pay the mortgage) be excluded from ownership if we get divorced? In the absence of matrimonial and other equitable laws, that is what would happen. While a case can be made that it was my wife's fault for not taking title in her name as well, I think most Libertarians would acknowledge that the fiduciary nature of a marital relationship argues against one spouse being permitted to take advantage of the other in that manner.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests