Homosexual Marriage

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name That's because people are still operating under the traditional definition and idea of marriage! That's what you don't seem to get. Here you are advocating a RADICAL DEPARTURE from the traditional definition of marriage, and to defend that notion, you are peddling the concept under the packaging that even though the definition of marriage has changed, people's views and attitudes won't! It's absurdity at it's finest. The very idea that you can radically alter the core definition of a societal institution - and not have it alter people's attitudes towards that institution is nothing more than either an outright LIE or blind ignorance of reality.

So what you are saying is that it is simply "respect for the institution" that keeps all those millions of people from taking advantage? And that simply by allowing a man to marry a man, all those people will suddenly lose that respect and begin to ignore all of the barriars that already exist to this type of action? That is the sole and substance of your position? And by the way, explain how saying "Jim, if you and Greg want to enter into a spiritual and legal union where you pledge to honor and support each other through good and bad, wealth and poverty, sickness and health, you go right ahead" fundamentally alters that same contract for a heterosexual couple.

[Dirty Name]

I never claimed that the state does not have the right to limit/resrticct certain behaviors or rights, only that the state had to show some compelling reason to limit/restrict those behaviors or rights.

The compelling interest is the maximization of internal widget testing, long proven to be the most cost-effective solution available to the state. How many times must I point this out? All other options are sub-optimal. The state has a compelling interest in maximizing resources for the good of child rearing. The state's interest with respect to adoptive families is already protected via adoption agencies and vast networks of social workers who weild authority over adoptive parents.

The state has no other means of protecting it's compelling interest in children raised by biological households except via marriage - a longstanding institution proven to work. No compelling reason exists to extend marriage benefits to relationships incapable of being biological parents. Your requirement of having to have a compelling reason against a group in order to withhold benefits from them is a red herring. This is the purpose of the widget analogy - to illustrate that the state often stimulates and encourages certain behaviors via the use of incentives, and those who fail to qualify aren't treated unequally - to the contrary, everyone is measured by the same yard stick and same sex couples don't measure up.

In the case of Loving vs. Virginia, as you are so fond of, the yardstick measurement (race) had no relation whatsoever to marriage. In the case of gay marriage, the yardstick measurement (ability to procreate) is a major component AND a compelling state interest.

The state has plenty of reasons that can be demonstated to stop polygamy and incest. They can produce study after study that are not biased in intent nor flawed in methodology to support the necessity for limiting that behavior. They can not meet the same challenge in regards the "harm" of homosexuality to society. They can not do it in regards to allowing homosexual unions.

Why do you continue to ignore the idea of homosexual incest? Is it non-existent?

If they can show the harm in the widget subsidy, then they have every right and, in fact, the responsibility to limit it's distribution.

The "harm" as I have stated repeatedly, is that the desired effect of the subsidy would be defeated. No different than the state paying subsidies to protect corn farmers. If they are forced to pay subsidies to all farmers, the state's desired effect (protection of the corn crop) is reduced, because subsidies make farming things other than corn more attractive.

This is where your argument ultimately fails. You state and restate your belief that homosexual marriage will be damaginging, you quote people who philosophically agree with you, but you do not, because you can not, back those opinions up with cold hard facts.

There is plenty of evidence out there to back up my belief that homosexual relationships are harmful and morally wrong. But I've NEVER, EVER injected those beliefs into this discussion, and I challenge you to prove that I did. The fact is, for every study of homosexuality, and gay parenting, promiscuity, etc. there is another study showing the exact opposite effect. Does this mean that we average all the data out and declare the practice "not harmful"? I don't think so. I think we just need to have a few truly objective studies on the topic. Two lesbian professors releasing a gay parenting study just doesn't carry much weight with me - no more so than would a study by two pastors showing the harmful effects of the homosexual lifestyle have any impact on your views.

Instead, I choose to frame my argument in terms of absolutes. I rely on basic economic principles
to conclude, for instance, that broadening the definition of marriage will lessen the impact of the incentives on societal behavior. I use history to form my conclusion that the slippery slope argument is valid - considering that homosexuality was viewed as a perversion by virtually all of society not 50 years ago, is it really a stretch to believe that gay marriage paves the way for multi-partner unions and general (i.e. non-sexual) domestic partnerships? Is it really a stretch to believe that in another generation, incestuous relationships, even between heterosexuals, will be frowned upon? After all, with advances in genetic research, birth control and chemical/pharmaceutical abortions, why shouldn't two family members, in a loving, committed relationship, qualify for legal marriage benefits too?

The point is that I don't even have to cite statistics illustrating the depravity of homoexuality in order to make my case. That's why I've never done it.

And as to the concept that Aunt Julie is going to marry Cousin Sue to get the tax benefits of marriage, we went over that when we talked about the college room-mates. The difficulties of extracting yourself from this arrangement of convienence have already been amply demonstrated.

WRONG. You have NOT done so. Your only point is that it's inconvenient and unpopular under CURRENT marriage laws and social norms. But since you are advocating a change in the law, can you give me one good reason why my aunt and cousin should be denied the exact same benefits you are demanding? Can you even give me a reason, under your revised definition of marriage, why domestic partnerships shouldn't be completely "liquid"? Under your notion of the institution, why is life-long commitment necessary? Why not just have rotating life partners? Wouldn't that provide us with a little more "sexual variety" and intrigue, a little more freedom, and all the benefits of having someone to share the joys and pains of life with?

"I treat no group with contempt that is based on the same set of criteria that you use. I have contempt for people who harm others because of their own narrow and selfish beliefs and desires."

Show me how gays are harmed more than my aunt and grandma. Show me how gays are harmed more than two brothers who love each other. Show me how gays are harmed more than soybean farmers who don't get corn subsidies when they refuse to plant corn.

Show me how I'm more selfish than two men who deprive a child of a mother by paying a woman to bear a child for them. Show me how I am selfish when I defend the institution of marriage against a radical change in the very definition of the institution - only so a single group of sexual deviants can engage in their lifestyle AND qualify for the same benefits as heterosexuals - without bearing nearly the same burdens or providing the same benefits.

Spare me your self-righteous crusader speech.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name Show me how I am selfish when I defend the institution of marriage against a radical change in the very definition of the institution - only so a single group of sexual deviants can engage in their lifestyle AND qualify for the same benefits as heterosexuals - without bearing nearly the same burdens or providing the same benefits.

I will officially disengage from debate with you because this sentence alone shows what your mind-set and mentality really are. Tell everyone else how this isn't about bias or bigotry, because I'm NOT listening to you anymore. I thought that maybe, since you seemed otherwise to be fairly competent, you might respond to reason, but you do not. In the end, it is all about the "diviant" lifestyle. It does not matter what those who dispasionately look at the reality of gay life and sexuality say. In your mind it is and will always be a perversion, and nothing else matters. It has been interesting from the "make me a better debator" side, but now, it is obvious to me that you are beyond reason.

[Dirty Name]

So what you are saying is that it is simply "respect for the institution" that keeps all those millions of people from taking advantage? And that simply by allowing a man to marry a man, all those people will suddenly lose that respect and begin to ignore all of the barriars that already exist to this type of action?

Ah, if only I would allow you to get away with such oversimplifications of this complex topic. Of course that's NOT what I'm saying, and you either know it or you're not as intellectual as I had originally thought.

Perhaps you need to go back and review the past 100+ pages of my argument to get the full flavor. I grow weary of you attempting to win points on style, playing up your posts so that the peanut gallery of fellow homosexuals will stand and applaud your wit, when you consistently fail to make any efforts to understand the true complexities of the argument that stands in opposition to you.

And by the way, explain how saying "Jim, if you and Greg want to enter into a spiritual and legal union where you pledge to honor and support each other through good and bad, wealth and poverty, sickness and health, you go right ahead" fundamentally alters that same contract for a heterosexual couple.

I have REPEATEDLY stated that the effects of legalizing gay marriage won't be felt overnight. I have offered the analogy of a counterfeit $50 bill. To refresh your memory, let me ask this question. If I print a fake $50 bill, and give it to you, does it INSTANTLY devalue the other $50 bills in your purse or wallet? In practice, you can still buy the same goods and services you could before, at the same price. But in reality, the value of your real bills was diminshed by a tiny, imperceivable amount. You may never feel the impact personally. But the cumulative effect, realized over time, is the real danger.

I have even provided real, tangible threats to the institution of marriage, asking you to elaborate on how you would protect the institution to ensure it wasn't weakened by altering the definition. Your response thus far has only been to rely on the current attitudes and norms of our society - views and beliefs that were bought and paid for by the benefits of the institution as it has existed since the birth of our nation.

Your demand for philosophical equality has been shown to contain a logical fallacy. Attempts to repair the damage have relied on attempts to subtly alter the philosophical argument into one of literal comparisons, primarily comparisons to racial discrimination, which is also flawed because race had nothing to do with the institution of marriage, while procreation does.

So I'm still here, sitting on the mountaintop, waiting for some young grasshopper to ascend the Steps of Wisdom, enter the Temple, and answer the age-old question:

What interest does the state have in two people who are engaged in a presumably sexual relationship?

"None, Master," says one young pupil.

"Incorrect. Try again."

"Love?" says another.

"Nonsense!" says the Master. "The state can neither define a standard for "love" nor can it enforce that standard. Try again!"

"Mutual support?" offers a timid pupil, his voice wavering.

"Do sexual relationships, by definition, require mutual support?" the Master inquires, "No. And therein lies the problem."

"What is the problem, Master?" the young pupils ask in unison.

"The problem is that some sexual relationships result in new life - which DOES require mutual support. Thus, the state's interest in sexual relationships is primarily limited to those types of relationships with the potential to produce new life. Now, leave the Temple and reflect on this for a time, and come back when you fully understand it," said the Wise Master.

And the students, wanting to be wise as well, left the temple and reflected on the Wise Master's words. And they too became wise.

[Dirty Name]

In your mind it is and will always be a perversion, and nothing else matters.

And in your mind, it has always been about shoehorning my argument into a box labeled "religious zealot" or some other label where you can dismiss me on those terms, rather than to address the very real shortcomings of your position.

With your last post, you have proven that you, like most before you, are incapable of dispassionately arguing your position. You wear your emotions on your sleeve, your feelings get hurt when someone refers to your lifestyle as "deviant" - when in fact it IS. Get over it. Homosexuals engage in deviant sexual behavior - a lifestyle that many people still believe is, at the very least, a perversion, and at most, an abomination. But you know what? It shouldn't matter to you what my PERSONAL beliefs are. They have ZERO bearing on the logic of my position. I simply defended my position when YOU made the debate personal by claiming to have contempt for me and my position.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I do not run away from an engaging discussion just because people refer to me as a bigot, a homophobe, or any of the other insults you hurled at me less than an hour ago. I'm still here, because I'm AM dispassionate.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name I grow weary of you attempting to win points on style, playing up your posts so that the peanut gallery of fellow homosexuals will stand and applaud your wit, when you consistently fail to make any efforts to understand the true complexities of the argument that stands in opposition to you.

Perhaps lsbskins1 recognizes, as I do, that the best arguments are simple arguments. You have to work a lot harder to justify your position than we.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name And in your mind, it has always been about shoehorning my argument into a box labeled "religious zealot" or some other label where you can dismiss me on those terms, rather than to address the very real shortcomings of your position.

The shortcomings manufactured to suit the needs of your argument, do you mean?

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm still here, because I'm AM dispassionate.

The issue's more important to us... homophobe. *chuckle chuckle* My, but I do crack myself up.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Regardless of my personal beliefs, I do not run away from an engaging discussion just because people refer to me as a bigot, a homophobe, or any of the other insults you hurled at me less than an hour ago. I'm still here, because I'm AM dispassionate.

Funny, I might have used another word.

I just check back to this thread from time to time to see what more could possibly be said. Nothing meaningful apparently. Bigots are so damned tedious.

[Dirty Name]

Perhaps lsbskins1 recognizes, as I do, that the best arguments are simple arguments. You have to work a lot harder to justify your position than we.

Perhaps that's because I understand the complexities of the marriage institution and you do not.

[Dirty Name]

he shortcomings manufactured to suit the needs of your argument, do you mean?

Are you alleging that I have manufactured the notion that homosexuals cannot procreate? All I do is point out the facts and ask you to respond. If one is to accuse another of "manufacturing a case," one should present evidence to back up such a charge.

[Dirty Name]

The issue's more important to us... homophobe. *chuckle chuckle* My, but I do crack myself up.

Obviously it's not MORE important to you than me. Were it unimportant, I wouldn't be here at all. So what you mean to say is that it's more personal to you, because you are gay. Big difference.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Perhaps that's because I understand the complexities of the marriage institution and you do not.

Oh, yes, that must be it.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Obviously it's not MORE important to you than me. Were it unimportant, I wouldn't be here at all. So what you mean to say is that it's more personal to you, because you are gay. Big difference.

That's a fair distinction.

[Dirty Name]

Funny, I might have used another word. I just check back to this thread from time to time to see what more could possibly be said. Nothing meaningful apparently. Bigots are so damned tedious.

I see the Peanut Gallery has returned. Strength in numbers, pack mentality. Like a bunch of cackling hyenas. Laugh it up, call names - dismiss the arguments on the grounds that you don't like the messenger. At least we all know this isn't about equality anymore - just benefits for another group of liberal socialists whose only tactic is the villification of the opposition.

[Dirty Name]

That's a fair distinction.

And you are at least an open-minded and intellectually honest opponent.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name And you are at least an open-minded and intellectually honest opponent.

One does one's best.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name I see the Peanut Gallery has returned. Strength in numbers, pack mentality. Like a bunch of cackling hyenas. Laugh it up, call names - dismiss the arguments on the grounds that you don't like the messenger. At least we all know this isn't about equality anymore - just benefits for another group of liberal socialists whose only tactic is the villification of the opposition.

OK, so I was wrong. Bigots can be amusing. Your arguments, if they can be called that, are ludicrous, even if you are so impressed by them. That is perhaps the most amusing aspect. As a libertarian, I do find it amusing to be called a lefty, liberal or socialist. This is the third time today on this silly forum I have been called such. You right wingers are so damned predictable.

[amana1man]

In my early 20s by accident I ended up in a gay bar. If you are not gay but feel the gays are getting a raw deal please visit your local gay bar. I found it to be a sick disgusting experience. If gays wish to pratice there life style they must do so away from the eye of public. I think children growing up in a home where this sick shit goes on is wrong wrong wrong. I think a homosexual person is one who has a psychiatric disorder. This is abnormal behavior and should be treated as such. It is a developmental disorder that is variable in expression but is recognized and diagnosed by impairment of the ability to form normal social relationships. Marriage, hell no. Send to a nut house for those with psychiatric disorder and hope they can be treated.

[lsbskins1]

I make this post only in the interest of making it plain that I would gladly engage anyone in debate who has an interest in actually looking at the issue objectively. I am a lesbian, and therefore do view this issue through my own particular filter. I do not shy from that admission. I resent the implication that I have run from superior reasoning, because I have not run from anything of the sort. I have simply come to terms with the fact that no matter what I say, no matter what evidence I put on the table, some people will not see beyond "deviation" or "perversion". It matters not a whit to them that all the objective, dispassionate science supports the finding that homosexuality does not represent a pathology, is not in and of itself damaging or dangerous to health and happiness and represents simply a variation on a norm. Of course, alot of people who are "fools on a hill" believe deeply and passionately that the are "wise men on a mountaintop". I can not alter that perception either. I simplify nothing. Nor do I practice the "throw as much shit at the wall as possible and see what sticks" debating style. Overly verbose lawyers and debators do not have a good case and they hope to hide that fact by talking in cicles, making unfounded accusations and alternately insisting that you broaden the focus when the weakness of their arguement starts to show and then insisting that you answer some piddeling side specific when seeing the big picture makes it obvious that what is on the wall is, in fact, shit (wait, this isn't shit..., it's corn! See it right there.)

[belverron]

Quote by: amana1man In my early 20s by accident I ended up in a gay bar. If you are not gay but feel the gays are getting a raw deal please visit your local gay bar. I found it to be a sick disgusting experience. If gays wish to pratice there life style they must do so away from the eye of public. I think children growing up in a home where this sick shit goes on is wrong wrong wrong. I think a homosexual person is one who has a psychiatric disorder. This is abnormal behavior and should be treated as such. It is a developmental disorder that is variable in expression but is recognized and diagnosed by impairment of the ability to form normal social relationships. Marriage, hell no. Send to a nut house for those with psychiatric disorder and hope they can be treated.

I went to a gay club last night for the first time. It was pretty fun. I never dance, usually, but I just got caught up in it. Anyway, it was just a bunch of people having fun and dancing and stuff. I don't know what you're talking about.... Oh, the drag show was fun, too.