Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Twoanickel blathering away in this thread like he owns it, but too scared to make a peep in the other thread that gives right-wingers the chance to establish how same-sex marriage allegedly threatens marriage.

Where's that thread? Lead me to it so I can weigh in.

[RickSp]

Quote by: twoanickel They are just trying to act civilized now so the stark differences between those who believe in Christ and those who hate Him don't stand out so sharply. So stop your charade of being civilized.

Yada yada yada. So now you claim to be the only civilized one. Amusing. I suppose all the rest of us are barbarians. Just don't follow the example of those most civilized crusaders who butchered their fellow men in the name of your "Prince of Peace."

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: tivoDan1116 Right to marry another consenting adult with whom they are in love. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man", Loving v. Virginia, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, see also Maynard v. Hill.

Incorrect. I, as a heterosexual, do not have carte blanche the "right to marry another consenting adult with whom I am in love." Despite the language in Loving v Virginia, There are still certain restrictions placed on that alleged "right," for example, if I loved my adult sister or mother, I would not have the right to marry either of them.

The bottom line is that in order to legally marry, EVERYONE, gays, straights, etc. must meet certain minimum standards in choosing a spouse. Nobody has total freedom to marry anyone they choose.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name More name-calling from you. Can you do anything else? Can you actually DEBATE without resorting to this tactic?

See I was right. When you have nothing to say you starting claiming to be insulted. Rather lame diversionary tactic really.

And you claim that gay couples can get married and have all the benefits under the law of straight people. Then you cite one side-show example as the basis for your bullshit generalization and you cannot figure out why your intial statement is a lie? I'd would have given you more credit than that.

[Dirty Name]

See I was right. When you have nothing to say you starting claiming to be insulted.

HAHAHA. Caught you in a lie. Show me where I claim to be insulted. Otherwise shut up and debate.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name The bottom line is that in order to legally marry, EVERYONE, gays, straights, etc. must meet certain minimum standards in choosing a spouse. Nobody has total freedom to marry anyone they choose.

Exactly what the traditionalists said about mixed race marriage. Your arguments mirror Loving v Virginia exactly, even if you lack the candor to acknowledge it.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name HAHAHA. Caught you in a lie. Show me where I claim to be insulted. Otherwise shut up and debate.

More bullshit word games. I guess that is all you can manage.

[Dirty Name]

More bullshit word games. I guess that is all you can manage.

You live in an alternate reality. That's all I do is debate here, and you accuse me of the complete opposite. Slap yourself and snap out of the daze you're in.

Exactly what the traditionalists said about mixed race marriage. Your arguments mirror Loving v Virginia exactly, even if you lack the candor to acknowledge it.

Which is EXACTLY what those promoting incestuous marriage will argue... LOL Thanks for making the slippery slope argument for me.

One of these days you people will realize you are making an illogical argument. On one hand, you demand equality for gays, on the other hand, you claim incest is a seperate issue, and should be considered separately, OR the other half of you essentially admit that "anything goes" is the only viable option for marriage, and that it will have no impact on the institution.

Make up your mind, then perhaps we can have a reasonable debate.

You get the last word for a few hours, Rick. I'm heading home for some dinner with my nuclear family. =)

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Which is EXACTLY what those promoting incestuous marriage will argue... LOL Thanks for making the slippery slope argument for me.

I am coming to realize just what a pointless waste of time any attempt at conversation is with you, nevertheless, once more.

The rascists of 1967 claimed that if the state let blacks and white marry that they might as well let people marry their cats and dogs, or let brothers marry sisters. The bigots of 2006 claim that if the state let gay people marry that they might as well let people marry their cats and dogs marry, or let brothers marry sisters. The same nonsense then is still nonsense now. Nothing much has changed in thirty years, regrettably.

[Matt W]

Both of you. Drop it. Put each other on ignore or something, but this is going nowhere. :rolleyes:

Do not respond to me within this thread. PM myself or Sean with any questions.

[Dirty Name]

The rascists of 1967 claimed that if the state let blacks and white marry that they might as well let people marry their cats and dogs, or let brothers marry sisters. The bigots of 2006 claim that if the state let gay people marry that they might as well let people marry their cats and dogs marry, or let brothers marry sisters. The same nonsense then is still nonsense now. Nothing much has changed in thirty years, regrettably.

And the exact same, above quote can and will be used when brothers and sisters DO try and legalize incest.

When does it end? That's all I want to know. Tell me when the slide down the slippery slope ends.

[tweetyboo]

Although homosexual marriage is wrong, it isn't the real issue. The president isn't focusing on the real issue in this nation. He needs to stop thinking about the gay marriage issue and focus and what is important. There are thousands of troops are dying and he is just wondering about gay marriage. That issue has plently of time to be solved, but as of now the most important issues should be taken care. I believe in pro choice. Every one has the right to believe and do what they want. You can't and shouldn't control anyone, it isn't your right. As a result, the president needs to get ont the real issue and step up as president. As of now, he isn't doing a good job.

[Boetie]

I got into a debate with Dirty Name way way back in this thread. The debate was over the Nebraska amendment Section 29 aka initiative 416. Dirty Name claimed the law didn't bar same sex couples from the political process, in other words the law wasn't a violation of the 1st Amendment.

It went before the Federal Court and the court ruled the law was in violation of the 1st Amendment and in a small way a violation of the 14th Amendment as well.

Just to update everyone on this case. The parties opened argument before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. However that court rules it will be a sure thing the case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

[Jack]

Welcome, tweetyboo (I can't believe I just typed that). :)
I suspect you'll find many here who agree with you right down the line. Then you'll also have the pleasure of meeting those here who will tear you to shreds. It's all good...it's what we do.

Personally, I can't disagree with anything you posted.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tweetyboo Although homosexual marriage is wrong, it isn't the real issue. The president isn't focusing on the real issue in this nation. He needs to stop thinking about the gay marriage issue and focus and what is important. There are thousands of troops are dying and he is just wondering about gay marriage. That issue has plently of time to be solved, but as of now the most important issues should be taken care. I believe in pro choice. Every one has the right to believe and do what they want. You can't and shouldn't control anyone, it isn't your right. As a result, the president needs to get ont the real issue and step up as president. As of now, he isn't doing a good job.

Frank Rich suggested that the conservatives are shifting their focus anyway. Bush's statement about his support for the anti-gay marriage amendment wasn't in the Rose Garden in prime time. It was in an obscure auditorium in the Executive Office Building at 1:45 PM where he spoke for less than 10 minutes. It even looked as if he was embarrassed by his own pandering.

That debate died on the floor of the Senate less than 48 hours later, when the amendment went down to an even worse defeat than expected. Washington instantly codified the moral: a desperate president at rock bottom in the polls went through the motions of a cynical and transparent charade to rally his base in an election year. Nothing was gained — even the president of the Family Policy Network branded Mr. Bush's pandering a ruse — and no harm was done. Except to gay people. That's why the president went out of his way to talk about "tolerance" at this rally, bizarrely held on the widely marked 25th anniversary of the first mention of an AIDS diagnosis in a federal report. Mr. Bush knew very well that his participation in this tired political stunt, while certain to have no effect on the Constitution, could harm innocent Americans.

How Hispanics Became the New Gays

Rich suggests that the conservatives have a found a new scapegoat for all of the country's problems and as a diversion for all their own failures. For the conservatives the Hispanics are the new gays.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name And the exact same, above quote can and will be used when brothers and sisters DO try and legalize incest. When does it end? That's all I want to know. Tell me when the slide down the slippery slope ends.

There is no slippery slope, except in the fevered fantasies of the intolerant. Mr Jaggers summarized the logical absurdity of the argument nicely as simple and shoddy circular reasoning. Thus framed, the argument goes round and round and gets nowhere, while the framer paints the opposition in a bad light.

The fallacy is also obvious in history. As I noted before the rascists of 1967 claimed that if the state let blacks and white marry that they might as well let people marry their cats and dogs, or let brothers marry sisters. Did it happen? No. Was the institution of marriage damaged in any way? Nope. Did tolerance force us down the "slippery slope" to debauchery and destruction. No, there is no slippery slope.

The bigots of 2006 claim that if the state let gay people marry that they might as well let people marry their cats and dogs marry, or let brothers marry sisters. The same nonsense then is still nonsense now. Nothing much has changed in thirty years, regrettably. Will tolerance force us down the "slippery slope" to debauchery and destruction. No, there is no slippery slope.

Of course nothing will move those who mistake fillibuster for argument but that is not really my concern.

[Dirty Name]

I got into a debate with Dirty Name way way back in this thread. The debate was over the Nebraska amendment Section 29 aka initiative 416. Dirty Name claimed the law didn't bar same sex couples from the political process, in other words the law wasn't a violation of the 1st Amendment. It went before the Federal Court and the court ruled the law was in violation of the 1st Amendment and in a small way a violation of the 14th Amendment as well. Just to update everyone on this case. The parties opened argument before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. However that court rules it will be a sure thing the case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Can you post a link to that story so we can easily reference it?

[Matts]

I previously pointed out the fact that a homosexual man and a homosexual woman can use their respective reproductive potential in order to have a child together and that this goes against the popular myth that a heterosexual identity is a precondition for reproduction. I further pointed out that this kind of non-heterosexual reproduction need not be assisted by a government-funded third party. Dirty Name replied to my post as follows.

Quote by: Dirty Name Regardless of the method, such a claim ignores the rather obvious and important question of parental custody. Does the sperm donor have parenting rights and responsibilities? Of course. There are a number of legal hoops that the biological parents must jump through in order to conceive and raise a child in this manner. To claim that there is no burden to the state is nonsense.

In other words, Dirty Name shifts the point of view from the situation before conception to the situation after conception because his argument concerning the situation before conception (that is, only a heterosexual couple can acquire a child in a way that does not require intervention from the state in some form or another) proved problematic. He now refers to "a number of legal hoops that the biological parents must jump through in order to conceive and raise a child in this manner" but is unable to indicate what these would be and how these would be more of a burden to society than in the event that the man and woman in question were heterosexuals. If (1) a homosexual man and woman wish to share the responsibility of raising their child, how does this differ from a situtation in which (2) a heterosexual man and woman wish to share the responsibility of raising their child?

What is the unbearable burden that homosexual parenting would cause society? So far Dirty Name has only vaguely gesticulatet towards some mysterious efficiency calculations which are supposed to prove that society can only afford to recognize heterosexual couples. He has tried to base his rationale for this view on the notion that only heterosexual couples can have children. Even if the premise that only heterosexuals or, even more absurdly, only heterosexual couples can have children was valid, granting special status to heterosexuals couples regardless of whether or not they actually have children would not be a valid conclusion. But this is precisely what Dirty Name is suggesting, that society should grant special status for all heterosexual couples on the basis that some heterosexual couples have children.

Does he also demand special status for heterosexual couples who could not have children together even if this was their wish? The situation of a heterosexual couple who are unable to have children together is identical to that of a homosexual couple. In both cases one of the partners is typically capable of having a child with a person who is not involved in the relationship. There are also elderly heterosexual couples who wish to have their relationship recognized by the society. Should they be granted the same special status as younger heterosexual couples even though they clearly cannot fulfil the reproduction criterion?

Let me restate my view on society's support to people with children. If support is to be granted to individuals on the basis of legal guardianship, eligibility to receive support must be based on the stated criterion, legal guardianship; it cannot be based on some additional circumstance, such as the sexual status of the relationship between the parents. If support is to be granted on the basis of legal guardianship, a heterosexual relationship between a man and woman without children cannot be a valid criterion for eligibility to receive support. If support based on legal guardianship is nevertheless granted to heterosexual couples without children, this means that the system rewards sexual orientation, as opposed to supporting parenthood, and the stated criterion for eligibility to receive support is only a facade for a covert sexual-political agenda.

[Dirty Name]

So after all that, it still boils down to the fact that, at best, it's an exceedingly rare exception to the rule. Our government doesn't make public policy to satisfy every concievable circumstance.

[Matts]

Quote by: Dirty Name Conception does not need to be encouraged in the least, but where it does happen (naturally, no less), the state has an interest in encouraging stable relationships above and beyond any interest in non-procreative unions...

How is one to interpret this sentence in light of what was just said about homosexual parents raising their own offspring? "Above and beyond any interest in non-procreative unions?" The state should have an interest in encouraging stable opposite-sex households with children "over and beyond any interest" in encouraging stable same-sex households with children? How is it in the interest of the state to disencourage a stable relationship between two adults of the same sex who are raising a child?