Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Yes, you have me there. I'm intolerant of homophobes. I'm also intolerant of racists and terrorists. I'm bigotted against bigots.

 

[Snide]

General observation:

If hating bigotry makes me a bigot, so be it. It's a paradox I can live with.

Intelligent people know the difference between that hatred and the hatred of, say, homosexuals.

 

[Ziggurat]

from memory, so please excuse any typos:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The state has an interest in promoting ssm's because it forwards the basic principles of liberty and equity that said state was founded upon.

I would note that "equity" is not listed as one of those inalienable rights. Nor is marriage (or the lack thereof) an issue of liberty (anti-sodomy laws, in contrast, are) - it is an issue of privilege, which is different. Furthermore, equity and equality aren't the same thing. As I've already mentioned, equal protection isn't an issue here. So there's really nothing in the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution, which requires that the state provide SSM's.

Does the state have an interest in promoting equity? Arguably, yes, on the grounds that it increases social harmony and therefore provides a benefit to society. And again, that's actually a point I agree on. So the question is, does that benefit warrant state action? That's a tough question in the sense that it's really hard to provide any measures of these quantities we can agree on, and there are going to be people who in good faith disagree on the answer to that. It's a legitimate argument in favor of SSM's, to be sure, and it's one I'm actually pretty sympathetic to, but it is NOT one predicated on "inalienable rights".

 

[Huntster]

I would invoke Hanlon's Razor here. I wouldn't assume hatred is the case in all instances, when simple ignorance is a perfectly viable possibility.

How about simple political opposition on the grounds that it may not be in the best interests of society as a whole?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Well then, that's part of the argument. So pursue that line: what proportion of gay marriages would involve procreation? How do children of gay couples fare in society? There may indeed be a case to be made here, but don't lose sight of the fact that the case does have to be made.

Sure, I’m trying to make it; it’s near all I post about .

These questions are being answered and they look very favorable, but I do find it odd to express concern about “How do children of gay couples fare in society?” when that worry is clearly eased by removing the remaining legal disadvantages these families have.

No cart-before-the-horse reasoning is involved. It's just that procreation involves a lot more than just giving birth, it also involves raising those children to be productive citizens.

Hey, that’s my point!

The statistics are quite clear about this: children of two-parent families fare much better than children of one-parent families, and so it is only natural to try to promote two-parent families. That's what marriage does.

And that stability and monogamy does the same for the children raised by gays too. These kids depend upon their two-parent home (grandparents, aunts, cousins and so on) just as much as any other.

Sure. And that should be at the heart of the pro-SSM message. Because I actually AGREE with that to a pretty large extent. I've been taking a largely anti-SSM stance so far in this thread not so much because I'm actually opposed, but because I can recognize that the argument against it is generally misrepresented, and if you want to form a GOOD argument for it, you need to actually stand up to those arguments against it which have substance.

I understand, and I appreciate the workout.

Not quite. The fact that states let some such couples marry suggests that procreation is not the ONLY interest the state has, but it says nothing about what other interests the state might have. And I'm not sure you want to push that line of argument too far, because there's more than one way to resolve the apparent discrepency: we could allow SSM's, or we could simply ban marriages which now require the couple to be infertile, and you're only interested in one of those results.

It’s not me pushing that argument though. It’s those opposed to SSM. If it truly is procreation, the least you could do is ask a couple, just as you ask their sex, which may not be apparent or even male or female.

They could, but the state still has an interest in promoting marriage before children result. Because birth control is pretty reliable, most couples interested in long-term relationships with children don't have children until they're financially independent and stable. That typically takes time, and it's often made easier by the financial benefits of marriage. So there's a definite motivation to provide the benefits before children arrive on scene.

Then the same goes for SS couples. Again, in those conservative states the % is about 33% of SS lead Households are raising children. Couples of all kinds often lead to children in the home, and it is happening more and more for gay couples, the so-called gayby boom (who thinks these terms up?).

Well, if you think the government shouldn't be doing that, you might want to look on your driver's license. The government DOES make that dividing line, on a rather regular basis, and you've got to complain about a whole lot more than just marriage law if you think making that distinction is itself wrong. And good luck convincing the general population.

My driver’s license also needed some very personal questions, medical questions, answered before it was given, and, of all of them, my sex was the lest pertinent to my driving ability (here’s a sexist joke in here somewhere ). Besides no one is refused a driver’s license because of their sexual anatomy, so why would that be near as much a bother?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Oh, yeah. What a great point.

Since quality can't be assured (remember the "free choice" thing?), society should ban two parent families, grandparent involvement, then approve same sex marriage?

Please.............

That strawman isn't even cleverly disguised. Try again.

What for? What good would it do?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What for? What good would it do?

It might make your position look a little less absurd, but you're right, it won't fool anyone here. Your fallacies and strawmen have no power to convince people in this forum.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
.......the same social morals that are arguing for homosexual marriages are the ones who have been degrading marriage in the past century.

That's just complete garbage. SSM proponents are not encouraging hetero couples to divorce.

Read the words, Kenny. All of them, please.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The social morals are also not encouraging people to divorce, hunster.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What does your sexuality have to do with the definition of the word "bigot", and the intolerance of both sides of the issue toward each other?

To your first question: "group"
To your second question: See my KKK analogy.

Do you have the same reading problem as Ken "I'm always right" the Thai Boxer? (See sig line below........................)

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

"Group" isn't the only category in the definition.

KKK? Again, while KKK members are bigots, so are their opponents.

 

[bluess]

Tradition.

So, we have a status quo. If there's something wrong with it, it ought to be changed.

I've never heard anyone argue that childless people getting married causes a problem. That must not be a problem. No one wants to change the status quo in order to prohibit childless heterosexuals from marrying.

In order to make the case that the status quo ought to be changed, you have to show that there is a problem with the status quo that needs to be fixed, and your argument fails in that regard. The argument starts with the traditionalist saying, "Marriage needs to exist because of children," You counter by saying, "But we allow childles couples to marry,"

So far so good. You have shown that some people can marry, even though they do not have one of the key characteristics (children) that make marriage an important institution. However, the next step in the argument fails, unless more is added. The next step is to say, "Therefore, we should add other childless couples to the group that is able to marry."

That doesn't make sense. You are arguing that since there are some marriages in which the state has no interest, there ought to be more marriages in which the state has no inerest.

I would be more likely to argue that marriage needs to exist to clearly define ownership and inheritance. The 'love' marriages of today are certainly not traditional.

If, instead, you argue that the state has a compelling interest in homosexual marriages, then you have an argument. Scot consistently makes that argument, and it's a compelling one. In our society, there are plenty of people raising children as if they were both parents, even though biologically, they can't be. Assuming marriage affords protection to children and those who raise them, and assumingthat's in the interest of the state, then those people need the same protection that children raised by natural parents and other heterosexual couples receive.

Then, the anti gay marriage side would have to revert to an argument that same sex couples ought not to raise children. Some would use that argument, but it's losing ground quickly, as more kids are raised htat way, and no harm seems to come from it.

That's why I gave up opposition to gay marriage. I'm not prepared, in the absence of evidence, to tell Scot he can't raise children, and if marriage is important for children, then it's important for his children, too.

Scot's arguments have been previously stated, and with great finesse. He needs my arguments like a fish needs a bicycle.

On the other hand, i still find offensive the idea that his marriage is "exactly like" mine. That whole capability to have babies without even trying seems to me a nontrivial distinction. Likewise, our genders domake us different in my opinion. I don't think my marriage is better than his because of our differences, but I think it is different. Whether the state needs to acknowledge that difference is a separate issue, but i bristle at the idea that there is no difference.

What is the 'capability to have babies without even trying'? A homo couple has to work to have children much harder than a fertile hetero couple.

 

[Huntster]

I'm hardly intolerant of the people of the other side, if they changed their mind I'd accept their position. If homosexuals decided that they didn't want to get married, you'd still hate homosexuals.

Thanks for the new sig line, slick.

 

[thaiboxerken]

On the other hand, i still find offensive the idea that his marriage is "exactly like" mine.

Was someone trying to convince me that the arguments against gay marriage are not based in hatred?

 

[rocketdodger]

General observation:

If hating bigotry makes me a bigot, so be it. It's a paradox I can live with.

Intelligent people know the difference between that hatred and the hatred of, say, homosexuals.

This is what I find ironic. As yoda (and psychology) has taught us,

fear -> anger -> hatred.

Thus, for someone to hate something, they must first fear it. I would say that hating bigots makes sense in this light. But to hate homosexuals? A person has to be pretty pathetic to be afraid of homosexuality...

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand the opposing viewpoint, I don't agree with it. I don't agree that hating homosexuals is a good thing or a valid reason to ban gay marriage.

Like I said, you are incapable of attributing any disagreement to anything other than hatred on the part of your opponents. You're a bigot AND a fool.

If you said interracial marriage should be banned, I'd also call you a racist.

Wow, what a wonderfully shallow and useless analogy.

There is no substantive difference between a typical racially mixed couple and a typical racially homogenous couple. There is a rather obvious difference between a typical heterosexual couple and a typical homosexual couple. You can disagree all you want to about the implications of that difference, and what to do (or not do) about it, but the fact that there IS a difference in one case and not in the other is rather transparent. But you can't even acknowledge that, you're so wrapped up in your own self-righteousness.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Like I said, you are incapable of attributing any disagreement to anything other than hatred on the part of your opponents. You're a bigot AND a fool.

My opponents haven't demonstrated anything other than hatred towards homosexuals. Not ONE valid argument has been presented against homosexuals getting married.

There is no substantive difference between a typical racially mixed couple and a typical racially homogenous couple. There is a rather obvious difference between a typical heterosexual couple and a typical homosexual couple.

The only difference is genetilia. That's hardly a substantial difference when it comes to love and marriage. It's as substantial as skin color.

 

[Huntster]

The social morals are also not encouraging people to divorce, hunster.

You are a real piece of work, Kenny. I just don't know what to say to you anymore.

Are you blind as well as a selective reader?

A basic introduction:

The sexual revolution refers to a change in sexual morality and sexual behavior throughout the Western world. In general use, the term refers to a later trend of equalizing sexual behavior which occurred primarily during the 1960s and 1970s and remerged during the late-1990s and 2000s, although the term has been used at least since the late 1920s.

This social morality has been a disaster, and some (like yourself) who ought to see and recognize it simply march on towards further disaster.

 

[bluess]

I appreciate Zig's presentation of intelligent arguments against SSM. It has been very difficult for me to understand an opposing viewpoint, since the only reasons given to me previously were obviously founded in bigotry or religious reasons.

I don't think that the arguments founded on the state's desire or need to be involved in the resulting children to be complete. Marriage has certainly changed over the years, and the state's interests in relation to the management of property and financial holdings appears to have increased.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This social morality has been a disaster, and some (like yourself) who ought to see and recognize it simply march on towards further disaster.

That's strange. I kind of figured that homosexuals that wanted to get married wanted the state to recognize their long-term monogamous relationships to each other. Yet, you want to say that proponents of same-sex marriage are of the same morality that encourages divorce.

Your hatred is transparent, as your arguments get more and more ridiculous.

 

[Huntster]

.....you want to say that proponents of same-sex marriage are of the same morality that encourages divorce....

Proponents of same-sex marriage are still engaging in the sexual revolution, and it has been a social disaster throughout it's political lifespan in the Western world.

Your hatred is transparent, as your arguments get more and more ridiculous.

It is your stupidity and ignorance that is painfully transparent.