Yeah, maybe, but this is a discussion thread and those are points on the front lines of the battlefield on this issue. If we want to keep things REALLY simple, I'd point out that 52% of California voters voted not to expand their definition of marriage to include gay relationships. If people want to overcome that very simple and plain fact, they have to engage in complicated discussion.
He and I agree on most of this discussion (including the fact that the crux of the issue, is VERBIAGE, not considerations), and the Irony of that has not been lost on either of us.
no, your straw man challenge, by definition, is illogical. I detailed that out. the fact that you haven't defined what is illogical about my post, simply declared it so, reveals you can't and aren't interested in logical discourse. if you were, you wouldn't have been dishonest in your dispute of my position which had nothing to do with what you attempted to make it.
no, my argument in no way expanded into the idea that homosexuals shouldn't have children, it was simply that if they do they inherently are at a shortcoming in their ability as a pair to rear a child in many respects, not that they are incapable of being loving, caring and even good parents. thus, by that mere fact a straight couple provides more value when at its best than a gay couple. and if the argument for gay marriage is that they are equally as valuable as a straight marriage, than that argument is flawed and that consideration for homosexual marriage is very, very weak. and my argument in no way even attempts to claim that homosexuals will choose to behave like straight people if the option of gay marriage isn't available. if that were the case, homosexuality would have ceased to be an issue long ago because nobody would be practicing it because what you proposed would have already taken place.
Lots of valid points on both sides of the argument. I think the original discussion was based on the language of the law and calling a homosexual civil union a "marriage". I understand the "society is concerned about the childrens' well being" concept but I think that argument skews the underlying concerns and the original issue. As JE as mentioned repeatedly, as well as others, whats to say a homosexual couple can raise a child better or worse than a hetero one? What's to say of all the children living in single parent homes? These are valid points but skew the issue because of a lack of data, a lack of experience, and much too little history to see what type of effects this will have on society. I think its a wash in the end. There are serial killers from single parent homes and there are multimillion dollar CEO's from single parent homes. The same could be said about any group. The situations and opportunities presented to children in ANY home or living condition will have a far greater affect on their future than the sexual preference of a their parent(s). Lets get back to the original problem - calling a homosexual civil union a "marriage"..... Hey - TFSM is my god too!
And if the majority share that view, then that will be the way it is. Do you realize how preposterous that is? I'm all for striking down laws that people collectively feel are not applicable or conflict with modern sensibilities, but religion has been so intertwined in our history and in the past civilizations that we have borrowed laws from, that that whole idea is ridiculous. And you really think a belief in something greater ourselves - something magnificent that should be revered - is incompatible with reason and morality? Mythological figures are just the personification of that greater force or forces. People throughout history have gravitated towards some form of religion or another and it is human nature to personify things that are important to us. Just because we don't fully understand something doesn't mean there isn't a reason behind it.. or a benefit to it. And it's easy to paint religion with a broad brush, but there are thousands of them and not all of them lost their purpose or been high-jacked by profiteers. The history of corrupted religions is ugly, but no more so than that of atheism. On the subject of high-jacking.. what's this thread about again?
No it's not, why do you have to compare the two? No-one's asking you to enter into a same sex marriage; again I'm back to my point which no-one has actually yet answered, which is why it makes a blind bit of difference to anyone? Apart from Gunther, who's apparently so caught up in Catholic guilt over his excessive masturbation that he can't think straight, we appear to have largely agreed on this thread that procreation is not essential to marriage, and that same sex couples should and do have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I don't see what the issue is after that. Why are you trying to associate a value to a particular type of marriage? Is a childless marriage worth less than one with children? Is a marriage featuring divorcees worth less than a pair of first timers? What about divorcees with children compared to childless first timers, who's worth more there? Some gay people want to get married for the same reasons that some straight people do, because they love each other and want to make that lifelong commitment to each other. Some of them want to do it under the eyes of their god, some want to do it on a beach, some want to do it in the Elvis Chapel and some want to do it while freefalling from 15,000 feet. Who are you to question those choices?
Right, and so the issue is whether or not the Supreme Court will find that being gay deserves protected status akin to a person's race, or perhaps their gender. P.S. - No court has done that yet. Not even the San Francisco court. If you want gay marriage, put it on the ballot and let the people vote. If it doesn't pass, then you can't have gay marriage - but you can have something else; just not something called "marriage." Then, when you can get enough people who want to change it to reflect contemporary mores, take another vote. That's the Scalia position in a nutshell.
Women should be able to marry but not men. For far too long women have been oppressed it is now their turn to shine. (first) Only lipstick lesbians at that, the others are too manish. And I don't mean a Indian reporter.
I mentioned that in one of my initial pots in this current discussion that it matters to people who believe in sexual morality, for whatever reason they choose, and as such believe that the society they live in, and have an option to influence, reflect that morality. unfortunately, that means judgment will get passed on behavior. some people find that mean, others believe there may actually be absolutes in this world in regards to our behaviors. considering your question is about caring, the legality of allowing that preference to influence the allowance of such is another discussion. the value is inherent in the totality of what the union provides. just because that value doesn't apply to all marriages (childless marriages), it still has applicability, and thus the value is real and relevant. here is the problem with your argument -- the idea that nobody has a right to decide whether behavior is acceptable or not, or should be promoted. the only logical repercussion of that is that no behavior should be off limits. that's ludicrous and childish. children believe that we should all be able to do as we please, but as we mature we see the value of standards. I'm not questioning their decisions, I simply have a position in regards to it.
Although this is a digression, it remains sufficiently related to the main subject, so I will talk about it here. WHile on this issue Hobbes and I are in general agreement, I think we arrive at it from different directions. He can speak to his own manner of arriving at that same place, but mine is to my mind entirely in keeping with my generally progressive views. How can that be when so many so called progressives support gay marriage? I think the answer to that question derives from the fact that the Democratic Party has developed its constituency as in large part those who support and of course those who directly benefit from expansion of civil rights laws, meaning minorities. And I am certainly fine with where that all started, since civil rights should have been expanded to prevent discrimination against the current roster of protected classes. Having said that I have always been leery of the classification of homosexuals as a protected class at least insofar as the specific subject matter concerns BEHAVIOR as opposed to having class based features, such as color, gender, age, etc... Why is that a concern? Because in not ascribing to a libertarian point of view, but accepting the need for government and the proper regulation of private behavior for the common good (within limits, of course, that imo do not apply to this discussion), I respect the general legitimacy of the state to adopt measures, laws, that benefit society as a whole. That follows from the fact that at least in theory and generally, if not at all times, this is a democracy derived from the consent of the governed, its citizens, and that such laws reflect taht consent and the will of the people. When those citizens otherwise follow the rules and through their elected representatives, or in the case of Prop 8 the ballot directly, adopt a law according to the law, I think that law deserves respect and should not be overturned for the benefit of a few, without good reason. Beyond that I applaud efforts to pass and enforce laws that that majority can assert is to the benefit of society as a whole. And on the whole, not currently being able to think of a contrary example, those laws also regulate BEHAVIOR. This is in fact the legitimate purpose of government. In short, society has a right to regulate behavior, unlike passing laws detrimental to groups of people based on their having certain features. So, I think the laws defining marriage as between man and woman have a rational basis, serve a valid purpose and were properly adopted. Those seeking to overturn this situation I think have, or should have, a heavy burdern in doing so. I find the arguments raised against these laws insufficient and unpersuasive. PARTICULARLY unpersuasive are inapplicable analogies made for really rhetorical and pedantic purposes between the "right" to gay marriage and previous civil rights struggles. All such arguments fail, as have been addressed before. That being the case, the support of many progressives for gay marriage appears to me to be based upon some combination of interest group politics (the Dems are the minority/interest group party, so if you are a Dem you support the claims of those who have succeeded in labelling themselves deserving minorities) and a misunderstanding of what is actually involved here. The former reason is probably the main reason most Dem elected officials support gay marriage, but I am not bound by that sort of calculation. So I am perfectly comfortable with being on the same side of this issue as Hobbes, despite almost always otherwise disagreeing with him.
Nobody has a right to decide whether behaviour is acceptable or not when it has no impact upon others. You or anyone else has yet to make a case for same sex marriage having a negative impact upon anyone else in society, and therefore legislation has no place in outlawing it. For example, if I choose to walk through my local shopping mall wearing nothing but nipple tassles and a cardboard tube to cover my erect manhood, I will quite rightly be arrested. However, legislation does not exist to prevent me dressing accordingly in my home, because the impact of such behaviour upon society in that scenario is non-existent. Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society.
This is an example of how progressives can get themselves into trouble on an issue like this. Say a merchant sells tainted products, injuring some people who buy the product unaware of the taint. Should not the state have the right to prohibit this sort of activity? And how in doing so should the state go about deciding whether such behavior is acceptable or not? Say a sufficient number of people agree, and their elected officials so vote, to encourage a form of behavior seen as socially beneficial. In doing so the conclusion is also made that such encouragement will be most effective if directed at certain groups who engage in behavior associated in some way with that objective, as compared to those who do not engage in such behavior. Can the state not discern in what manner its encouragement should best be directed? Clearly the progressive position on these three questions should require an affirmative answer to all of them. Yet in support of gay marriage some progressives make arguments so silly as those Blue quotes above. Or to take another recent example how about the New York Times approving that court decision in Massachusetts that was based on a states rights 10th Amendment argument? Efforts of these sorts by progressives too in thrall to the gay agenda that lead them to deviate from sound progressive principles should be condemned, not encouraged.
Arguing for same sex marriage based upon a private freedoms argument is insufficient. The question is not freedom to engage in private activity. the question instead concerns whether the state should be forced to issue official approval venerating the PUBLIC expression of such behavior. Different animal.
"Now, tell me without reverting to anachronistic religious dogma why two gay people marrying has a negative impact upon society. " This is again not the real question. Two gay people cannot marry in the sense we are talking about unless the state agrees to or is forced to approve of such alliance, and to call it marriage. And yes, if society has concluded that whatever support, approvals, veneration, subsidies, that should and will go along with marriage should be limited to straight couples marrying, and for reasons that have in fact been explained to you, then in fact a great deal of damage takes place if the state is forced to extend that to behavior it does not in fact think should be so supported.
