Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Don't bother debating Italiangm... all you'll get is eye rolling and snide comments. There's never any real debate...

Typical. LOL :)

[italiangm]

[quote=Dirty Name]That's because I've laid all the cards on the table since day one, and you have no answer for any of it except your snide, unsubstantiated dismissals. Why on earth would I need to offer a new argument if the original one holds up under scrutiny? I've said time and again that if you could prove me wrong, I'd admit it, and I've done so on at least one occassion on these forums, but not on this issue.

Quote by: Dirty Name This is a debate forum. So either answer the questions I've asked, ask a question, make a statement, or just go away quietly. Your constant banter is useless and irritating.

Tough. I'm here. They've been answered. Whenever you can ante up a new argument, you'll get your debate. Until then, it's just the same warmed over pablum from Dirty Name.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Dirty Name Don't bother debating Italiangm... all you'll get is eye rolling and snide comments. There's never any real debate... There are others, such as Belverron, who, though a vocal gay marriage advocate, is at least intellectually honest in his examination of the issue.

D.Name: I've noticed the arrogant sarcasm from the I Tie. He's very bitter isn't he. God, it's got to be painful to be a liberal.

[Dirty Name]

Are you saying the state will suddenly realize it has no compelling interest to restrict polygamy?

No - we are saying that the EXACT SAME COMPELLING INTEREST to restrict polygamy ALSO makes it necessary to restrict SSM. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

What we have been asking for over the past two pages is for you to provide for us a DIFFERENT compelling interest to restrict polygamy that WOULD NOT apply to same sex marriage.

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam Are you sure? If homosexual marriage becomes commonplace folks who have other erstwhile illegal marriage plans would believe that since the old definitions of the institution can be changed then it can also be changed to fit their needs. I believe that first we'd see multiple marriage raising it's ugly head. Then marriage between men and boys....an obvious extension of the homosexual marriage arrangement. Eventually any union would be accepted. Just saying that the above isn't true, doesn't make it so. Certainly those who want to have pologomy accepted are just as dedicated to their cause as are the homosexuals. Our weakened culture cannot stand such an onslaught. Marriage has been a foundation of our society. It should not be messed with. If the Left destroys marriage what's next?

Can we agree that the slippery slope, while it provides interesting material for speculation, has no real bearing on this issue? Same-sex marriage should be evaluated based on its own merit regardless of the repercussions, should it not?

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron Can we agree that the slippery slope, while it provides interesting material for speculation, has no real bearing on this issue? Same-sex marriage should be evaluated based on its own merit regardless of the repercussions, should it not?

Are you saying then that we should ignor the unintended consequences of homosexual marriage? Isn't that both dangerous and naive?

We cannot ignor what might happen after we legalize homosexual marriage. The consequences, both intended and un, are a very real part of the process and should be taken into consideration.

Don't you agree?

[Dirty Name]

Can we agree that the slippery slope, while it provides interesting material for speculation, has no real bearing on this issue?

It WOULDN'T have any real bearing, if the arguments were completely different. But that's just it - they aren't. Every case for gay marriage always includes the demand for equality, when same sex and traditional marriages couldn't be more different. So to lower the threshold and allow one form of marriage - solely for the sake of "equality" (where none exists) - necessarily means that other forms of marriage could make the exact same claim.

What we are asking for here is an argument in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage that couldn't also apply to incest and polygamy.

[belverron]

I suggest that we evaluate the case for gay marriage on its own merit. We should seek, as in all things, to find the answer that is more correct or more advantageous. If we do find the answer that is more correct or more advantageous, and that answer causes us to re-evaluate certain other issues, then it is because those issues should be re-evaluated. For this reason I believe that the implications of accepting gay marriage are not appropriately used as an argument against it.

[Dirty Name]

I suggest that we evaluate the case for gay marriage on its own merit. We should seek, as in all things, to find the answer that is more correct or more advantageous. If we do find the answer which is more correct or more advantageous, and that answer causes us to re-evaluate certain other issues, then it is because those issues should be re-evaluated. For this reason I believe that the implications of accepting gay marriage are not appropriately used as an argument against it.

Hmmm.... "the implications of accepting gay marriage are not appropriately used as an argument against it."

Now that's the strangest logic I've ever heard. If "implications" are not to be considered, what then, do we consider?

And let me also add that I find it absolutely amazing that you can argue for "equality" so earnestly, but when it comes to other forms of marriage, you refuse to consider it on equal terms with gay marriage.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name Hmmm.... "the implications of accepting gay marriage are not appropriately used as an argument against it." Now that's the strangest logic I've ever heard. If "implications" are not to be considered, what then, do we consider? And let me also add that I find it absolutely amazing that you can argue for "equality" so earnestly, but when it comes to other forms of marriage, you refuse to consider it on equal terms with gay marriage.

I'm sorry. I failed to make myself clear. By implications I meant the issues not directly surrounding gay marriage, corollaries if you will. I am differentiating implications from direct consequences, or trying.

[Dirty Name]

I am differentiating implications from direct consequences, or trying.

Nevertheless, what I and others are saying is that the legal arguments used to justify gay marriage will also be used to justify polygamy and incest. I am not clear on how you would differentiate gay marriage from polygamy and incest, or if not sexual incest, then let's call it a mutual care familial relationship.

Hypothetically speaking, if we all agreed that gay marriage was worthwhile and that gay couples were in fact worthy of equal status, but we also all agreed that incest is not worthy of equal status, how do we argue legally against incestuous marriage when we already demonstrated a willingness to lower the "equality" threshold to accomodate gay marriage?

I understand that incestuous sexual relationships can result in harmful effects to offspring. But what about non-sexual mutual care familial relationships? Are these not worthy of the same equal status?

The point really goes back to the obvious fact that "couples" don't merit equality in the same way that individuals do. This much is obvious from the current structure of our laws. The very existence of our laws is proof that incest, multi-partner unions, and same sex couples have not been considered equal to heterosexual couples.

Now, you are wishing to lower the threshold, saying, that, yes, in fact, same sex couples ARE worthy of equal status - but to do so, you demand that we ignore some very important differences between the two. Could not multi-partner unions and family partners (sexual and otherwise) argue the exact same thing?

And what possible grounds would you have for rejecting them? Sadly, many of your contemporaries are coming to the conclusion that there aren't any such grounds, and that government should be out of the marriage business altogether. In light of this fact - I can only conclude that any argument in favor of SSM carries with it some significant flaws.

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron I suggest that we evaluate the case for gay marriage on its own merit. We should seek, as in all things, to find the answer that is more correct or more advantageous. If we do find the answer that is more correct or more advantageous, and that answer causes us to re-evaluate certain other issues, then it is because those issues should be re-evaluated. For this reason I believe that the implications of accepting gay marriage are not appropriately used as an argument against it.

What you have just said is that we should adopt homosexual marriage because it's right and screw the consequences? Is that really a good idea?

Here's what I think you really mean. You want us to adopt homosexual marriage simply because you think it's right. Which, of course, it isn't. You see, you believe to the depths of your soul that homosexual marriage is the right and proper thing so do, and I am equally as adamant against it.

Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same rights as does anyone else.

Why mess with one of the oldest and most fundamental institutions in our society?

Your side is never going to get concensus on this issue. The only way that you have any chance of success is if you can get the activitist courts involved. Just as you guys did in Roe vs. Wade.

I'm afraid that you are just going to have to learn to live with the fact that Americans do not want homosexual marriage. It just ain't gonna happen.

Homosexuals in our society are doing just fine. They are free to live with their homosexual partners, and practice all of the perverted sexual acts that they want to practice. They cannot be discriminated against in hiring or renting or buying. They are free to flit around from floor to floor and roof top to roof top as much as they choose. I don't care. Few people do. But they cannot get married. That's reserved for a man and a women. Homosexuals have exactly the same rights as I do. They are free to marry anyone they want to, as long as that person is a member of the opposite sex. And that is how it has always been as how it should be.

[Dirty Name]

They are free to live with their homosexual partners, and practice all of the perverted sexual acts that they want to practice

Hey Logjam, despite the fact that homosexual intercourse is, by definition, a perversion, the folks on these boards start jumping up and down like organ grinder monkeys as soon as you use the term perverted, deviant, etc.

Not that I care. I just wanted to be the first to tell you that the next round of discussion will be on whether or not you are an intolerant, bigoted homophobe.

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam Here's what I think you really mean. You want us to adopt homosexual marriage simply because you think it's right. Which, of course, it isn't. You see, you believe to the depths of your soul that homosexual marriage is the right and proper thing so do, and I am equally as adamant against it.

If I've pretended otherwise I apologize.

Quote by: Logjam What you have just said is that we should adopt homosexual marriage because it's right and screw the consequences?

What I am saying is that you should not evaluate the gay marriage case based on your fear of the precedent it would set but based on the merit of the individual case. In other words, deal with the argument, don't just express your fear of what it means if it prevails. That does not invalidate the argument.

Quote by: Dirty Name Not that I care. I just wanted to be the first to tell you that the next round of discussion will be on whether or not you are an intolerant, bigoted homophobe.

Of course he is ^.^

Quote by: Dirty Name Hypothetically speaking, if we all agreed that gay marriage was worthwhile and that gay couples were in fact worthy of equal status, but we also all agreed that incest is not worthy of equal status, how do we argue legally against incestuous marriage when we already demonstrated a willingness to lower the "equality" threshold to accomodate gay marriage?

Polygamy is related, but I don't think that incest can be classified in quite the same way. I do see where you're coming from.

[Dirty Name]

I do see where you're coming from.

And that is why I consistently state that you are intellectually honest. As for your argument, I'd be happy to debate gay marriage on the merits.

What are they again?

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name And that is why I consistently state that you are intellectually honest. As for your argument, I'd be happy to debate gay marriage on the merits. What are they again?

I'll get back to you on that. My sleep-tank's far from full, and I've got homework.

[newfederalist]

It is an obvious distraction to governmental issues. Another person can marry their dog for all I care, if they can find someone to do the service, which I am sure they could. It should have no weight or bearing in our legislative halls. Gentlemen, this is what the Democratic-Republican Party wants us to argue about! Arguments like these keep up the facade that this is a two-party system we are dealing with. Time to look at the issues, and forget the smokescreens.

[belverron]

Quote by: newfederalist It is an obvious distraction to governmental issues. Another person can marry their dog for all I care, if they can find someone to do the service, which I am sure they could. It should have no weight or bearing in our legislative halls. Gentlemen, this is what the Democratic-Republican Party wants us to argue about! Arguments like these keep up the facade that this is a two-party system we are dealing with. Time to look at the issues, and forget the smokescreens.

While I agree with some of your statements, if affects some of us intimately enough that we can't just walk away.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: newfederalist Gentlemen, this is what the Democratic-Republican Party wants us to argue about!

Hey, newfederalist! Welcome to the monkey house!

[Jack]

After 1940 posts on the subject, I've lost so much interest in the topic that I wouldn't say "yes" if George Clooney proposed to me on bended knee.