Tolerance hurts, too.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Saint Vern What diff does it make? You have a right to go unquestioned in believing as you choose, and so do I. Specifically your right to hold such beliefs; the merit of those is a separate question, and the answer does not in any way change the validity of that right. Thus what anyone else says is of no significance.

This is contrary to your other arguments, specifically the ones where you rail against homosexual marriage. By denying someone the ability to PRACTICE their beliefs you effectively deny them the right to have them.

Saying that gay people have a right to "hold such beliefs", i.e. be gay, and then saying that they don't have the right to pursue normal intimate relations as an exercise of those beliefs is equivalent to saying "Christians should be allowed to believe in God, but having church services and congregations and churches should be outlawed."

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Dirty Name I totally disagree with that statement... a gay marriage ban has little to do with "intolerance" and everything to do with protecting the institution of traditional marriage from being diluted with irrelevant unions.

Ok, so i will ask the question I have asked many others of your kind over and over and have been ignored (because I present a position that either makes you look stupid or hypocritical)...

Traditional marriage is diluted by irrelevant unions.
Divorce dilutes traditional marriage by making those marriages irrelevant.
Therefore, anyone who is against gay marriage because it "dilutes" marriage should also be against divorce.

So I assume you (and Saint Vern) are in favor of outlawing divorce?

Futhermore, please explain, with evidence, how homosexual marriage is any more or less of a union than heterosexual marriage. I don't understand where the word "diluted" applies. Are you implying that homosexuals cannot possibly love each other as much as heterosexuals?

If "diluted" is the word you want to use, I would say homosexuals cannot possible dilute marriage in any area where heterosexuals have not already.
You can get married and divorced in the same day.
You can have 50 kids out of wedlock and live with your baby's daddy for years.
Over half of marriages end in divorce.
Over three-quarters of nonwhite children live in one parent households.
There are weddings being performed by Elvis impersonators at drive-thru windows.
People flaunt their affairs.

But somehow a group of people that are in the fight of their life BEGGING the government to let them get married so they can have a lifetime commitment to another person they love is what is diluting marriage? The concept would be laughable if it wasn't so stupid.

[Dirty Name]

By denying someone the ability to PRACTICE their beliefs you effectively deny them the right to have them.

No, banning the legal recognition of homosexual marriage doesn't deny them anything except a handful of benefits that they simply don't qualify for. No one is banning them from PRACTICING their beliefs. They are freely allowed to have a wedding ceremony and engage in all the gay sex they want to. It's simply absurd to equate withholding certain benefits with an outright ban on one's lifestyle.

Of course, I fully expect most liberals will continue to argue the sound bite and not the substance.

[Dirty Name]

Ok, so i will ask the question I have asked many others of your kind over and over and have been ignored (because I present a position that either makes you look stupid or hypocritical)...

Puh-lease. Spare me the dramatic build up, and especially spare me the false dilemma presented in your bogus question. You present several valid points, then follow it up with a question providing only two extreme choices when in fact there are many options between the two.

This isn't amateur hour in here.

So I assume you (and Saint Vern) are in favor of outlawing divorce?

I agree that divorce does dilute marriage as you say. It is far too easy to get divorced in our society. So, no, I don't support your ridiculous conclusion, but I am in favor of eliminating no fault divorce, for starters.

[puellamore]

But back to the issue of tolerance.

Has anyone noticed how bigots want to prevent people with whom they disagree from living according to their beliefs, but when someone tries to prevent them from imposing their discrimination they scream about how they are being discriminated against?

I find that incredibly ironic (not to mention asinine). Apparently they have a difficult time grasping the concept of tolerance.

[Dirty Name]

Has anyone noticed how bigots want to prevent people with whom they disagree from living according to their beliefs

Give us a relevant example, please.

[puellamore]

How about christian fundies who claim that homosexuality is a choice, a personal choice based on beliefs or lack thereof, but insist on passing laws that discriminate and cause harm to those who wish to live according to that choice.
Then, when someone points out that this is merely discriminatory bigotry, they whine that denying them their joy of discrimination is discriminating against their religious beliefs.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Dirty Name No, banning the legal recognition of homosexual marriage doesn't deny them anything except a handful of benefits that they simply don't qualify for. No one is banning them from PRACTICING their beliefs. They are freely allowed to have a wedding ceremony and engage in all the gay sex they want to. It's simply absurd to equate withholding certain benefits with an outright ban on one's lifestyle.

By withholding those benefits, you put homosexual marriages at a significant disadvantage, creating a de facto impediment to practicing their beliefs. And why withhold those advantages? Why not grant them the same advantages, or, better yet, since government should have no interest in marriage, eliminate those benefits for heterosexual marriages?

Since your argument will likely be something about society wanting to promote rearing of children or some such theory of society's "interest" in promoting heterosexual marriages, let me head you off at the pass: Childless heterosexual couples get the same marriage benefits as ones with children. Homosexual couples with children do not get these benefits. Therefore, the law is both underinclusive, and overinclusive. Under Griswold v. Connecticut, when a law or set of laws involve a personal noneconomic right and they are aimed at a social purpose, the law is subject to strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny says, among other things, that if the law is either underinclusive or overinclusive it is not narrowly tailored to the purpose and is therefore invalid.

This is a good analysis that I just put together kind of spurr of the moment, but if any proponents of legalizing all kinds of marriage want me to, I could really put it in a better form.

Of course, I fully expect most liberals will continue to argue the sound bite and not the substance.

I wouldn't know. I'm not a liberal, so I cannot speak for them. How am I doing with the substance, by the way? Seems like you (and others) are arguing soundbites like "diluting the institution of marriage" (soundbite courtesy of Pat Robertson) while I am using complex case law concepts to argue a legal position.
{side note: remember when conservatives used to talk about getting government out of our lives? What a paradigm shift we've witnessed!}

I agree that divorce does dilute marriage as you say. It is far too easy to get divorced in our society. So, no, I don't support your ridiculous conclusion, but I am in favor of eliminating no fault divorce, for starters.

Ahh, good, you chose the hypocritcal position. That one is much more fun.

So, in the case of some modern practices that dilute the institution of marriage, you say to REGULATE them (like limiting divorce). In the case of other practices that you say dilute marriage, you say BAN them. Why? Why not ban all or regulate all? It's completely arbitrary. You're like the drug warrior that arbitrarily outlaws marijuana and regulates alcohol and cigarettes.

What am I getting at here? What I am getting at is that I want the anti-gay marriage people to be intellectually honest and admit that they are against gay marriage because they are uncomfortable with gays, or they think it is gross, or that they are trying to enforce their religious concept through secular laws. All this talk about society's interest in promoting marriage and everything else is just baloney they dig up because they know the gross argument and the religion argument are losers. If they were really in favor of banning things that dilute marriage, they'd be in favor of banning EVERYTHING that dilutes marriage (even the Elvis weddings).

This isn't amateur hour in here.

See above.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: puellamore How about christian fundies who claim that homosexuality is a choice, a personal choice based on beliefs or lack thereof, but insist on passing laws that discriminate and cause harm to those who wish to live according to that choice.

That you can choose to do something does not make that choice a "right" or something that we have to honor by thumbing our collective nose at decency.

[belverron]

"Indecent." I love being lumped with sluts and whores for something that was no choice of mine.