Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Okay, keeping in mind that this is the US we're talking about, what exactly is the "clear difference"?

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Racial background is not.

 

[Terry]

Homosexuality is a behavior.

so if I never had sex with a man, I woudln't be gay?

 

[Upchurch]

SSM is already "outlawed" in most areas, because it doesn't fit with the legal definition of marriage.

That remains to be seen.

However, it does not answer my question: Do you support outlawing SSM?

eta: emphasis added for those with reading problems.

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Racial background is not.

Nor is sexual orientation a behavior. The difference is not quite so clear, wouldn't you say?

 

[Random]

Homosexuality is a behavior.

Racial background is not.

Religion is a behavior. Should we discriminate based on that?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Homosexuality is a behavior.

so if I never had sex with a man, I woudln't be gay?

You would never be engaged in homosexual behavior.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay, point taken again, but, though it likely harms my ends, it shouldn’t harm my means or my position.

Right. That's more accurate.

Is there anyone even wanting this, though, personally? Let them speak. Isn’t it less of an issue and more of a tool for the other side to distract?

Yes. There are people who want that. More accurately, there are people who want the benefits that come with marriage, and who happen to be parents and children. I'll bet there are many, many, people who would "marry" their parents, if they could then get their parents a visa to come to the United States and get fast track citizenship.

 

[Upchurch]

Religion is a behavior. Should we discriminate based on that?

That's a fairly good point you have there. If people of the same sex aren't allowed to marry, it would only make sense to me that people of the religion shouldn't be allowed to married as well. It would cause a whole bunch of problems in the short term, but in the long term we might be better off.

 

[Meadmaker]

. I've been to a lesbian marriage and know several married gay couples. They are married religiously and socially. The only thing they lack is government recognition of their marriage and the privileges that go along with that recognition.

There's something else that they are lacking. Hint: It's a legal thing. If you can guess what it is, you won't need me to educate you about why there are legal issues related to a man fathering a child with someone other than his wife.


If Upchurch can't guess, would anyone else like to take a stab at it?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

so if I never had sex with a man, I woudln't be gay?

You would never be engaged in homosexual behavior.

Wow, if you're right, with work, kids, and other obligations, I can't remember the last time I was a homosexual (In some jurisdictions, I'm not sure I ever was). You've cured me ! Now, where's that marriage license they give out to all those non-gays?

Huntster, you aren't directly discriminating against homosexuals or an orientation or a behavior. You are discriminating on sex.

Edit: In fact you'd promote the behavior, if the anatomy were different.

Let's say a couple goes to their country building and ask for a license (to avoid another tangent let's say they can't produce children together biologically, they know it, and they wear t-shirts that announce as much to the world). In the past you could look at one inborn trait, the color of their skin, and decide if they could get a license. Today, you are just looking at another inborn trait, their sex, and calling the discrimination good, regardless of if orientation is inborn or not (and if you now think “born that way” is important in that regard, I have a huge database of peer reviewed research on the subject, out of which I'd be more than happy to post).

The question is why can you deny people rights, and responsibilities, and often take their taxes disproportionately for their anatomy? How is that better than the color of their skin?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
SSM is already "outlawed" in most areas, because it doesn't fit with the legal definition of marriage.

That remains to be seen.

"Doesn't" is the present tense. "Remains to be seen" is the future.

However, it does not answer my question: Do you support outlawing SSM?

I support the state constitutional amendment voted on and overwhelmingly passed in the state of Alaska (where I am a resident) which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Homosexuality is a behavior.

Racial background is not.

Nor is sexual orientation a behavior. The difference is not quite so clear, wouldn't you say?

It's as clear as a sunny day.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Homosexuality is a behavior.

Racial background is not.

Religion is a behavior. Should we discriminate based on that?

Religion is a belief, and it is already well and specifically addressed in the very 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as most (if not all) state constitutions.

 

[Upchurch]

There's something else that they are lacking. Hint: It's a legal thing. If you can guess what it is, you won't need me to educate you about why there are legal issues related to a man fathering a child with someone other than his wife.


If Upchurch can't guess, would anyone else like to take a stab at it?

You're very, very close. You just need to connect the dots.

You're right. They don't have a marriage license, the document that the state governments use to legally acknowledge the social and sometimes religious marriage two people have. That's the point.

 

[Upchurch]

I support the state constitutional amendment voted on and overwhelmingly passed in the state of Alaska (where I am a resident) which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Then you do support outlawing homosexual behavior, namely you'd like it to be illegal for them to marry one another.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
so if I never had sex with a man, I woudln't be gay?

You would never be engaged in homosexual behavior.

Wow, if you're right, with work, kids, and other obligations, I can't remember the last time I was a homosexual (In some jurisdictions, I'm not sure I ever was). You've cured me ! Now, where's that marriage license they give out to all those non-gays?

Usually down at the superior court.

Congratulations!

Huntster, you aren't directly discriminating against homosexuals or an orientation or a behavior. You are discriminating on sex.

Yup. That includes heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage.

Edit: In fact you'd promote the behavior, if the anatomy were different.

No, I wouldn't.

The question is why can you deny people rights, and responsibilities, and often take their taxes disproportionately for their anatomy?

I'm not taking anybody's taxes. I'm paying them.

I've never voted in support of any taxes whatsoever, and have lobbied hard for the elimination or reduction of all taxes.

In fact, I believe all income tax (if we have them at all) should be a flat tax with no exemptions or deductions whatsoever.

 

[Upchurch]

Religion is a belief, and it is already well and specifically addressed in the very 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as most (if not all) state constitutions.

Absolutely true. Do you have a reason to continue the government promotion of one set of religions and the discrimination against other sets of religions in light of that very same amendment?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Usually down at the superior court.

Congratulations!

Yup. That includes heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage.

You know I didn’t mean sex, the verb, I meant sex, the geometry of your anatomy.

No, I wouldn't.

You wouldn’t promote two people going and getting a marriage license from the state, if they were one male and one female and, say, raising kids? You clearly don't promote it if they are one female and one female and raising kids, but you don’t promote legal marriage for the first couple either? Can’t be true.

I'm not taking anybody's taxes. I'm paying them.

Somebody paved your roads. Somebody pays for your military protection. And it’s not out of the goodness of their hearts, typically , that most gay couples pay more in taxes. They don’t pay more in insurance premiums either because they want you to pay less. If it weren’t for their inborn anatomy, they’d be forced to put into the government what you're forced to and they'd get back what you, their fellow citizen, do.

So, again, why was it wrong to do that when it was race, but okay when it’s sex (anatomy not “doing it”!)?

Edited for grammar.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Religion is a belief, and it is already well and specifically addressed in the very 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as most (if not all) state constitutions.

Absolutely true. Do you have a reason to continue the government promotion of one set of religions and the discrimination against other sets of religions in light of that very same amendment?

Absolutely not.

Now, can you give us some details of "to continue the government promotion of one set of religions and the discrimination against other sets of religions?"

 

[Huntster]

You wouldn’t promote two people going and getting a marriage license from the state, if they were one male and one female and, say, raising kids? You clearly don't promote it if they are one female and one female and raising kids, but you don’t promote legal marriage for the first couple either? Can’t be true.

Yes, I do. I must have misunderstood your question the first time you outlined it.

I'm not taking anybody's taxes. I'm paying them.

Somebody paved your roads.

They need to do a better job. We have precious few of them around here that are paved.

Somebody pays for your military protection.

Alaska is a virtual military outpost. I'm a longstanding member of the defense community. It might surprise you to know that, until fairly recently, the defense strategy here was atomic demolition after a hasty retreat if our air superiority failed.

And it’s not out of the goodness of their hearts, typically , that most gay couples pay more in taxes.

I understand. Like I wrote, I pay them too.

Unlike donations to church, if you don't payyour taxes, you go to jail.

They don’t pay more in insurance premiums either because they want you to pay less.

Take that up with the insurance industry. They aren't my favorite folks, either.

So, again, why was it wrong to do that when it was race, but okay when it’s sex (anatomy not “doing it”!)?

Again, race is not a behavior. Homosexual activity is.

 

[Random]

Religion is a belief, and it is already well and specifically addressed in the very 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as most (if not all) state constitutions.

But there are religons that do not support your beliefs about gay marriage. If a church wishes to perform gay marriages, and you come out and say they cannot because of your religous beliefs, that means you are forcing your religon upon them. The First Amendment states that you can't do this (which is why it is technically a blasphemy in many religons), so in any serious discussion of US foreign or domestic policy, you can't base your position purely on religon. You have to have something more solid than invisible sky pixies or vague semantic arguments, and I just haven't seen that from you.

 

[Meadmaker]

You're very, very close. You just need to connect the dots.

You're right. They don't have a marriage license, the document that the state governments use to legally acknowledge the social and sometimes religious marriage two people have. That's the point.

No. That's not it. The license is just the thing that allows them to get married, legally. It enables marriage, but it isn't part of being married. But, besides "government recognition of their marriage and the privileges that go along with that recognition", what else do they lack?

Anyone?

Huntster, Scot? It's a legal thing. The two lesbians don't have it. It isn't a privilege, and it isn't a recognition. "It" might actually be "them", and it is somehow related to why that fellow who sired a child with his mistress might be in legal, that's legal, trouble vis. a vis his wife.