Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Clearly we haven't "outgrown the garden", otherwise the lame "Adam and Steve" slogan wouldn't exist. And it certainly isn't a logical argument - which is the point that was being made - given that the Adam and Eve story is a parable meant to convey the idea of creationism, which is hardly a logical theory. Simply dismissing this point out of hand doesn't make it cease to exist.

Okay, but that doesn't remove bigotry, or right and wrong from the issue, which was the point being made. Sure you can apply the "what's their motivation?" question to anything, but that doesn't change the fact that many people simply believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin that gay folks will burn in hell for. And they translate these bigoted beliefs into legislation that actually strips basic civil rights away from an entire group of people, like prop 8 here in California. So midgets wanting to lower the height requirements of roller coasters has absolutely no bearing on whether or not opposition to same-sex marriage is motivated by bigotry or not. In fact, I don't even understand the point you're trying to make with the above argument. Especially since file sharing actually does hurt artists (argument for another thread ;))

And to take it a step further, of course gay people who support gay marriage are in it to suit their personal desires. They don't want to be discriminated against! Do they consider the affect on society? Who knows, but in my personal opinion, bigotry-based discrimination has never been good for society, so the pro-same sex marriage crowd has a far more stable logic-platform to stand on than the cons do.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Sure, but you were the one arguing that you don't think 'society' bases their opinions on fear and bigotry. I already accept that it works both ways - all ways. Your remark seemed to play that down if not outright reject it.

I agree that could be argued, because there's self-interest. But then we can move on to speculate about the motivations of the non-gay population - and on that score, I'd say the self-interest is more damning to the opposers. Keep in mind that few people, gay OR straight, are arguing for it because it's good for society - but many are arguing against it because it's bad for society.

Sure, on a broad level, people will acknowledge that defeating discrimination is good for society, but you know I'm not sure that's the principle thinking of those who support it. I think it's more realistic to say that there are:

(a) those who argue against it because they feel it's sinful or bad for society
(b) the rest who quite simply see no problem with it, and - in the absence of a convincing argument to oppose it - are generous enough to consider those of us who don't have that right.

Really, I don't see any great movement of people supporting it because they think gay marriage will somehow benefit society.

But then I've yet to see a single convincing argument against gay marriage that wasn't rooted in religion (or similarly woolly notions of a natural order or cosmic intention or whatever).

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Holy crap...you had the balls (albeit passive aggressive ones) to infer that my statements were somehow irrational? And that just applies to your last sentence. Your first two examples can't even relate to gay marriage. Or are you implying that smoking weed and filesharing are civil rights? Are you implying that gay people want to get married for the novelty of it? Like they're feeling left out of the club? Dude, gay people want to get married so that they can enjoy the same basic rights and provisions granted to married folks. If you can't think of any, Sean posted a ton of them on page 15. Your first two examples fail utterly because they simply cannot compare to gay marriage.

Your last example is so incredibly illogical as to be laughable. But I'm going to argue it, just so that you can't come back and say that I didn't. Theme park rides are designed for normal sized adults because there are exponentially more normal sized adults than there are little people. It's economics, Holmes. There is no way to make an average theme park ride safe enough for for a little person to ride, and there is no way to build a viable business out of a theme park designed for little people. The process of mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering that goes in to these places, not to mention marketing, food, park attendants, etc makes a theme park one of the most financially nightmarish operations outside of Las Vegas. Your example simply could not exist in reality. I'm fairly certain that Stephen Hawking proved this somewhere.

And if I sound condescending or insulting, I'm very tired. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of your arguments...

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

people are kinda twiddling about trying to "debate" this point with you but,
really
that was just fucking retarded.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Maybe because I'm from Wisconsin, but I have honestly never heard the "Adam and Steve" argument used as anything other than sarcasm.

The point of the argument is that pretty much everyone is biased, not just the bigots and hateful. It's in response to this thread's general attitude which seems to be that the anti-gay marriage people don't just dislike the idea but are also homophobic, bigoted, hateful people. It is not the argument that I dislike. I don't see anything wrong with same sex marriage personally. But honestly I would be afraid to ever argue against it because no matter *what* argument I come up with I would be called hateful. Same as arguing against affirmative action. I don't see it as stripping them of their "basic civil rights". They can still get married, it just has to be someone of the opposite gender.

I don't wanna argue the file sharing thing, because my point is that it was ambigious. You think it hurts you, fine. Mike Doughty claims that he'd be flat broke if not for it. Could be argued either way, and I'd wager that most arguments made on the topic are biased in some way.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I'm not downplaying it. I'm just saying it swings both ways. Maybe I'm just too much of an optimist but I think that fear and bigotry aren't the reasons for half the things they're claimed to be.

That it's a slippery slope?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

If you think I'm using those examples to compare specifically to the issue of gay marriage, you're missing the point. Every man has the civil right to marry a woman and every woman has the civil right to marry a man. As for the theme park thing; do you believe that the owner of the park HATES midgets? Of course not. There



Then go and cry about it...for the love of god do not attempt to refute it

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Well, you're very lucky to have been able to avoid the bigots of the world. I've been taken by surprise and shocked as hell by them throughout my life, and all across the country. Just when you least expect it, BAM! Some bigot pops up and makes someone close to me feel like shit right in front of our faces.

Unfortunately, I think it is true that it's hard to take the anti-same sex marriage stance without being pegged as homophobic. But there is a reason for that, which is that the "defense of marriage" side of the debate has most publicly manifested itself in the form of legislation that strips basic civil rights away from a minority group. Historically, those kinds of policies have been inherently driven by bigotry, and that seems to be the case with many opponents to same sex marriage now based on the arguments I've heard. Arguments based on things like homosexuality being a "sin", or on the idea that same-sex marriages would somehow destroy the value and meaning of marriage despite the increasingly cavalier attitudes that contemporary straight couples have towards marriage. Being born with a less common sexual orientation does not qualify someone as a "sinner", and does not make someone a threat. But to make those arguments is to say, in essence, "you're different, and that's bad" (which, incidentally, is still one of my favorite "worst children's book" titles :D)

Okay, now that's a messed up thing to say. I mean, just over 40 years ago, back when whites and blacks couldn't legally marry, the same argument could have been made this way:

"I don't see it as stripping them of their 'basic civil rights'. They can still get married, it just has to be someone of the same color."

I assume it's clear why that's a limitation of basic civil rights, yes? And as far as I can tell, it's pretty obvious how these two cases are extremely similar. If they're not to you, then I'm happy to discuss it further.

I don't think it hurts me. I know for a fact that it has taken money out of my pocket, and the pockets of other lesser-known musicians I've worked with. Sure it's helped some others, but unfortunately, it seems that the prevailing attitude of those who illegally download music is that they're doing nothing wrong and/or hurting no one, and that attitude has to stop. But if we want to talk more about that, we should take it over to the "P2P/Torrent Sites" thread.

But subject matter aside, your focus on "bias" seems to run throughout all of these topics to an unusual level. While we certainly need to recognize where bias enters into all of this, it simply doesn't disprove or counter things like facts, or real-world consequences. My personal "bias" has led me to assert that file-sharing, when used irresponsibly, has hurt many smaller artists, but that doesn't remove the "fact" that it actually has. And your personal "bias" has led you to claim that gay people "can still get married, it just has to be someone of the opposite gender", but that doesn't change the "fact" that gay couples who want to marry have had the legal benefits that are afforded to straight married couples stripped away from them through legislation like prop 8. "Bias" only excuses just so much stuff before it becomes irrelevant.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

well no, that'd be taking you seriously

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I figured someone would bring this up. I think if you compared society's bias vs. blacks a couple of generations ago vs. today's bias vs. gays you would be able to make a much stronger argument that the ban on inter-racial marriage WAS just a product of bigotry. I don't think there ever was a decent or logical argument for banning inter-racial marriage was there? I still know of many people who think of marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children. I think it's pretty obvious that gender is a much more significant distinction than race.

As for the rest; I don't have much to argue about there. I'm not saying there isn't some kind of bigotry out there, I'm just saying that assuming that ALL opposers to your point of view are bigots is pretty unfair.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Are you 12?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Thank you so much for saying that. I have wanted to say that for so long. He can be so insightful, sometimes, and then he goes a bit, I don't know. Like a 12 year old.


Oh, and you (god knows what the hell this damn long number name is supposed to mean), I'll get back to your arguement later...


34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j
pants (WOW, LOOKIT, IT LET ME COPY AND PASTE THAT!)

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

oh excuse me, i didnt know fusing little people and 420 activicts with gay rights and bundling it all up inside an Appeal to Ridicule was such a mature and developed way to approach things, then telling people they missed the point when it was the main thrust of "well that logic could go there".

gotta brush up on my internet rhetoric machine i suppose.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

It's not that hard to understand is it? The point is that everyone is gonna argue based on whatever bias they have, even if the idea itself is not a good one. Any other kind of 'link' is just your imagination - are you seriously just looking for something to argue or do you have a point somewhere?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

my point is that you're full of shit, and i think it's a classic mistake of this forum to not ignore shit posts like that and try to reason with it when it should just fall away like so much deadweight.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Alright!

It's obvious you have no clue what my argument even is, so I would suggest taking a reading comprehension class before posting again.

Ciao!

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Well, I don't personally feel there was ever a decent or logical argument for banning inter-racial marriage, and frankly, I have yet to hear the decent or logical argument for banning same-sex marriage.

So far, your two arguments cited against same-sex marriage as I've seen them have been the potential "slippery slope", and that "marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children".

The slippery slope argument is flawed in multiple ways. One, what slope are we supposed to be afraid of exactly? I assume it's the "if gays can marry, then what's to keep people from making it legal to marry their siblings/animals/the Eiffel Tower/etc?" The first response to that would be that we'd still need to have public opinion swing in favor of each of these individual scenarios enough for them to be legalized - simply allowing same sex marriage wouldn't nullify the individual issues of health, consent, common species, etc. that would have to be overcome for that to happen. That's not to say that I discount all slippery slope arguments - for example, I happen to think that the current war on tobacco and cigarettes will lead down the slippery slope of erosion of personal choice in favor of legislated health - but in the case of same-sex marriage, I see no comparable, logical progression of events that would follow affording basic civil rights to gay couples.

And the second response to the "slippery slope" argument is that it inherently equates homosexuality with inbreeding, beastiality, and a whole host of other extreme issues that it doesn't really have anything in common with at all, aside from the fact that none of them are included in the current definition of marriage. To clarify, take my fears about the war on cigarettes again. It logically follows that once cigarettes are banned for health reasons, other similarly unhealthy products will follow. Cheese, candy, prime rib, pizza - all of these things share very comparable unhealthy qualities to cigarettes that make it reasonable to understand the risks of going down that road. But gay couples have far more in common with straight couples than they do with inbreeding couples, or people who want to have sex with animals, or children, or most any of the other potential results of a "slippery slope" that opponents point to. It's simply not a logical fear as far as I can see.

The next argument you cited, that "marriage as primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children", is far less legitimate. Where does it say marriage is about having children? I've been married for 11 years, and my wife and I have no kids. Should we annul our marriage? What about married couples who are infertile? Should they have their marriages dissolved as well? What about couples who choose to adopt rather than procreate? Why should they be allowed to marry if marriage is "primarily a vehicle for couples who plan to have children"? I could go on, but do I really need to?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

No, you don't have to, because I personally agree with pretty much all of it. I just can't take the interracial marriage = gay marriage thing because I don't think there was ever any argument against it that WASN'T based in fear or racism. I'm merely staying that for gay marriage, there are arguments against. I don't think they are great arguments either, but the idea does fly in the face of what some believe marriage is about. Maybe not even the idea of pregnancy, but rather the idea of sex, which some would argue isn't really possible in some marriages. Some people believe it's unnatural. My point is that all the opposers are not necessarily bigoted, hateful morons. No doubt some of them are. The idea of marrying someone of the same gender is waaay more radical than marrying someone of a different race.
I guess a similar example would be Affrimative Action; it's possible to form an argument against it without being racist, isn't it?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

FWIW (:rolleyes:)

Yes you were. Specifically, "I don't think 'society' bases their opinions on fear and bigotry". Whereas my response was that opinions are frequently based on fear and - if not bigotry (I'm not comfortable with that word), then at least ignorance.

No. That's called a fallacy. When I said "argument", I meant something, you know, with legs. I also used the word convincing, and used it very deliberately.

I don't argue that opponents of gay marriage are bigots or homophobes. But an argument doesn't automatically become watertight by mere virtue of not being rooted in homophobia or "bigotry".

Anyway I'm taking dubman's advice and cutting out the rest of my post, particularly having just read this:

Really, if we can't get past the catch-all accusation of "you're biased!" then I can't be bothered wasting my time.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I don't really think it's airtight either. But the argument does exist. Maybe I misinterpreted something when I wrote that I don't think 'society' is voting on fear or ignorance. What I meant to say was quite a bit more complex than that. Of course people vote on fear all the time, but I don't necessarily think that fear has to be out of hatred or bigotry.

That 'fear of gays' thing is going to subside anyway; I'm 99% positive gay marriage is going to be legal in my lifetime, probably sooner rather than later.

I think maybe you should drop the bias thing, because that's really not what I meant. Read my posts again. Some people are biased, and some are not. My only point behind that is that it doesn't just swing one way. I don't like the argument of "we are using logic and reason, and you are biased" and some of the forceful language in this thread was implying. I'm not sure why people got so hung up on it.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I agree with that. But frankly, I think the majority - not all - who oppose it are probably basing it on some level of bigotry (unlike Deckard, I'm very comfortable using that word ;)), or at the very least, ignorance.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Sure. From my point of view, that's fair enough.

Btw - how about you give us a shorter name so we don't have to copy/paste it when typing?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Maybe so; I guess it all depends on what you call bigotry or ignorance. When people talk about that, they talk about race hate, the things that led to slavery, and the Holocaust. The issue is more complex than that. Would I rather sit down at a lunch table full of men or women? If I say men, could you ask me "why the men, do you not think men and women are equal?" Of course, but I don't think it's really a fair question. The reality is that the majority of straight people are not going to understand gay issues well, and pretty much all the gay people are going to be biased on them. I suppose you could call that bigotry and ignorance too, but I don't see it that way.


You can just shorten it to 349...how do you think I feel when I have to log in??

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I go by the classic definition of bigotry, as in the Merriam Webster dictionary, where a bigot is defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

The vast majority of those who oppose same-sex marriage do so based on their religious beliefs that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin. For example in California, the campaign for prop 8 which constitutionally banned same-sex marriage was largely backed by the Mormon church. And two other groups largely responsible for voting the proposition into affect were hispanics and blacks - both of whom are traditionally strongly religious groups. So there are your groups that are "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". And of course their "obstinate opinions" manifested themselves in constitutionally stripping a minority group of basic civil rights, which I'd say falls quite neatly into the category of regarding or treating "the members of a group with hatred and intolerance".

As for ignorance, I again go by the standard definition: "the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness"

Where ignorance plays into it is that it doesn't appear to me that many people who oppose same-sex marriage have any idea what it would really mean. Allowing same-sex marriage would ONLY mean that the federal and state governments would legally recognize a same-sex marriage so that they can be afforded the same rights hetero married couples have in regards to filing joint tax returns, inheritances, hell - simply being legally recognized as a family member to your partner. It WON'T mean any private or religious group will be compelled to start performing same sex marriages, or that children will suddenly decide to become gay since it's legal for gays to marry, or that straight marriages will suddenly lose their value, etc. To believe or argue any of these fallacies is ignorance, plain and simple.

"Bigotry" has never been in reference to ethnic hatred alone. That's your own limitation on the definition being introduced.

I can't say I really follow the analogy you're using here about being asked a stupid question in regards to what gender you prefer to sit with. I don't mean that to call you stupid, I just mean that I see no connection between saying you're more comfortable sitting with men and being asked if you think men and women are equal as a result. It has nothing to do with equality.

You're bringing "bias" back into the whole debate again, which I still don't understand. Honestly, it seems that you only invoke "bias" when it's in reference to points that counter your side of the argument. But to respond to your comments, sure, many straight people won't understand gay issues well. So what? Since when does not understanding a minority group's issues well justify stripping them of civil rights? As a middle-class white guy, I can't possibly understand all the issues faced by many African Americans as a result of this country's history of slavery, but I still recognize why they deserve basic civil rights. And sure, gay people are typically going to be "biased" on the issue of same sex marriage because of course they don't want to have their basic civil rights constitutionally banned. Again, so what? Do you believe that because you can call this a "bias", somehow it can be discounted? Aren't cancer patients going to be "biased" towards searching for a cancer cure? Does their "bias" somehow nullify the importance and goodness of their support for a cure? So what does a gay person's bias towards legalizing same sex marriage have to do with anything?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

This is really a handful, so let me say this:

There is a difference between bigotry and ignorance, and I would agree that most of the prop 8 voters weren't really aware of what the bill was going to do. It's pretty obvious that religion is ultimately what brought this down, so I can't really argue that. The point I'm trying to argue is a lot smaller than what you're implying. I do think that the people who voted against gay marriage did so for religious reasons that are in themselves bigoted, but I don't think the people themselves were. I don't think your average prop 8 voter would really mind if a gay couple moved next door.
I don't disagree with your other point either; I realize that the whole thing is sort of a tangent, I just really don't like the idea that some posters have that Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children. The problem with any political internet discussion is that like 95% of the people who discuss political are liberal and anti-religion; so it just becomes one big circlejerk where you can say hateful things like that and nobody ever calls you out. Frankly it makes me sick.

Since when does not understanding a minority group's issues well justify stripping them of civil rights? So if there's a minority group that loved goats should they be allowed to marry one? It's not a civil right for gays to get married. In fact, I would argue that marriage is an institution and not a civil right at all. It's no more a civil right than getting a drivers license is. Of course, you can bring up the inter-racial thing too; okay, so even then, I wouldn't say not allowing me to marry a black girl is necessarily stripping me of a right; it's just a right that doesn't exist yet. Of course you could argue that way the institution is defined is unfair. But I just don't see it as "not allowing gays their rights", when they're talking about something that would radically change the definition of marriage.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

If you're refering to Sarcasmo's posts, I didn't take what he wrote as saying "Christians who vote down gay marriage are hateful, ignorant, fearful people that beat their wives and molest their children". Especially when he clearly stated that he himself is a religious married man, and I doubt he categorizes himself as the above. I just understood it as pointing out the glaring faults in viewing same sex marriage as a threat to the institution of marriage when there are already plenty of straight people out there as we speak who are trashing marriage, and that we ought to be worrying about instead. Basically, why is a same sex couple considered a threat when there ARE so many straight folks out there (religious or not) adding to the incredibly high divorce rates of today, being abusive to their spouses or children, etc. If opponents really want to "defend marriage", then perhaps that's where they should focus their attention.

Okay, I'm going to ask you to justify this stunning leap in logic before I reply to it - especially since it's a comment that's already been addressed in my past few posts.

You seem to have a different definition of civil rights than I do. Part of the generally accepted definition includes "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality" - primarily for blacks when first instituted, but it applies to many groups (excluding goat fuckers of course, because among other things, that's an issue of beastiality and being in a relationship with a party that's unable to express it's thoughts and desires).

And the simple fact is that the rights regarding marriage do exist, which is why those who penned, backed, and voted for prop 8 in California felt it necessary to actually create a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibited same sex couples from being able to marry. So they were very literally and actively stripped of their constitutionally guaranteed right to "social equality".

Since we're at the point where you're actually asking me to defend my position against goat fuckers - which I did in my parenthetical above incidentally - I'd like to ask you a question, and I'd really appreciate a serious answer. Keeping in mind what we've already discussed, what are the good, logically sound, non-discriminatory arguments against same sex marriage in your opinion, and why?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Ok now I get it. You're a Christian who has a problem with gay marriage but doesn't want to be known as a bigot who beats his wife and molests his children, and wants everyone in the world to know how hip you are that you don't mind if they move next door, per se.

But you're right, sometimes this place is a circle jerk, but then you're still making slippery slope comparisons between zoophilia and homosexuality after pages and pages Sean and Deckard giving solid challenges to your thinking. which means, the biggest circle jerk right now is the one going on in your head. start responding to people's thoughts if you want a meaningful contrast.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I'm Jewish and in support of gay marriage. Did you read my posts??

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

sorry didn't read the I'm a gay loving jew post. All i've read is circumlocution and cant for pages cherry picking little grievances, that honestly has been not worth the effort to figure out exactly what's got your goad.

are you just angry with the world?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I'm reminded of Buggs Bunny's reverse psychology bit. I think he just got the ball rolling in that sort of way. I think.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

I don't really see this point as being too relevant. If I want to propose something that makes it easier to get funding for college, you couldn't argue against it by saying "so what, the graduation rate is only 70%, the whole system's going to hell". I don't think the people who don't support gay marriage do support spousal abuse. Also I doubt it's as easy to solve the high divorce rate as it would be this issue.

Okay, you said that the individual issues of each possibility would have to be addressed. Let's say you want to be a polygamist. What are the health, consent, or common species arguments against that? Or if you wanted to marry your sister? (you know, provided you wouldn't be having kids). As for the other argument, it depends on what you're looking for as 'in common'. You say a gay couple has more in common with a straight couple than a man/beast one? That's true, but I could argue that a brother/sister relationship has more in common with a straight couple than the gay one does.

I do have a different definition than you. Because I don't really consider marriage a civil right any more than getting a hunting license is. Again, I'm not really seeing it as an equality issue; I can't marry another guy either. Do you think that it's a civil rights violation that not everyone can run for President? I'm not making point of beastiality to equate the two issues. I'm saying that in both cases, they are essentially arguing to change the rules of marriage as they exist now. I'm not going to argue against gay marriage because I don't really believe the reasons that there are against it, but I would say one of the best arguments against it would be to say it's not necessary. The law allows me to smoke tobacco, but not marijuana; do I feel like I have the right to smoke marijuana if that's my preference? The point is I don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now. They are trying to legislate the rights of "couples", which I think itself would need to be defined before going further. I think the idea of a "couple" is too abstract right now and can lead to some of the issues I related above.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

One other thing I think should be addressed is that marriage is a religious institution, not a state one or civil one or federal one or whatever. The reason why we have marriage benefits was primarily to protect the mother and child who traditionally didn't work and therefore have their own benefits. Of course, roles are changing, and I don't think the marriage benefits are really as necessary anymore; the point is, let's not forget where these ideas came from...

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

It used to be. And in the beginning of the marriage cycle, for couples who are allowed to marry, it still is. Then, in most every case, it becomes a capitalist business program of some sort. I know that sounds harsh. Sad, but quite true.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

The relevance is glaring. If people who oppose same sex marriage frame their stance as a "defense of marriage" - as the name of the federal act passed under the Clinton administration states - then clearly they're framing their concern as being the defense of the sacred institution of marriage, yes? So what seems to be a bigger threat to the institution of marriage? A same sex couple entering into a loving, life-long partnership that will contribute to society in the same way that studies across the board have shown the vast majority of married couples do? Or would it be the alarming rise in divorce rates that currently stands at a bit over 40%, or maybe the flippant attitudes toward marriage that lead to things like drunken shotgun weddings in Vegas, or maybe spousal abuse which looks to affect around 10% of the entire U.S. population right now? Clearly, the interest isn't actually in defending the institution of marriage, because if it was, then these people would be focused on legitimate threats, not gay people who are in love and simply want to be able to get married.

As for your college analogy, I can't seem to make heads or tails of it. But I can say that I never claimed anti-same sex marriage people "support spousal abuse" - no one said anything of the sort. But for people who are so adamant about "defending marriage", it is odd that they're so much more vocal and active about stopping same sex marriage than they are about dealing with issues like abuse.

It all adds up to further evidence that this issue really boils down to ignorance, homophobia, and bigotry for a large portion of people who oppose it.

How that can be irrelevant to you is beyond me.


So then argue that point, please. Don't just say you could while failing to directly address the specific points I've raised, or the specific answers I've provided to your many questions,

Not just a different definition than me, but a different definition than what the actual definition is. You've made up your own definition of what civil rights are to the point that you've claimed legalizing interracial marriage was not a civil rights issue. That's pretty amazing to me. And frankly, if you approach issues so loosely that you redefine things on that level, then it's impossible to have any meaningful dialogue about it.

Let me try to explain it this way. Marriage is not technically, in and of itself, a civil right. Getting a hunting license is not technically, in and of itself a civil right. But denying someone the right to get married or acquire a hunting license because they're a member of a minority group makes these civil rights issues. So it's not about the rights themselves as much as the denial of basic rights for minorities that are enjoyed by the overwhelming majority. It's about equality.

You're focusing on a very narrow and convenient aspect of the issue to suit your argument. Sure you can't marry another guy, but do you want to? If you fall in love with someone and decide you want to make a life-long commitment to them, legally and publicly accepting them into your life as a new family member, I assume that person would be a woman for you, and you can do that. So sure, you can't marry another dude and that means nothing to you because you would never want to. But if someone who is genetically predisposed to loving someone of the same sex (as a little under 10% of the population is) wants to make that same commitment to their partner, they can't, and it means a lot to them.

No, because I actually understand what civil rights are.

Aside from the Defense of Marriage act, where are these "rules" written that you've raised a few times now? And why would they be exempt from being amended as all "rules" throughout history have been to address contemporary reality? It used to be a generally accepted "rule" that the Earth was at the center of creation, with the sun, planets, and the infinite universe orbiting the all-important human species. Or that hard labor was done by slaves. Or that interracial marriages aren't allowed. But all of those "rules" were found to be seriously flawed, and were changed. What's different about this one?

"It's not necessary"? That's the best argument against it? Well, hetero marriage isn't technically "necessary" either, so why does marriage exist at all? If, after everything that's been raised, that's the best argument against same sex marriage, then I think we've pretty clearly established that there are no good arguments against it. And despite the fact that you "don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now", there is. I base that on simple things called "facts". They don't have the right to legally marry and enjoy all the benefits that come with it, regardless of how you "feel".

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

When I say it's irrelevant, that's because it's irrelevant. Okay, here's the difference. We can legislate against same-sex marriage and prevent that from happening, which is why people are vocal about it. We can't prevent spousal abuse. There are a lot of groups dedicated to it, some religion-oriented, some not, but it's not something that can overall be shot. This argument would be like shooting down a law preventing mental patients from getting guns on the grounds of "there is too much gun-related violence anyway, so why wouldn't you be focused on that?" Could I argue: what's the bigger threat; a few people getting the means to defend themselves, or a nation of murderers who kill each other in cold blood? It makes no sense.

You honestly don't think these people care about the divorce rate?

I think I'm losing track...

The definition:
The personal rights of the individual citizen to have equal treatment and equal opportunities

How you see that is up to you. A blind person, even one with terrific senses otherwise, it's going to get a hunting license. Now I suppose race is one thing and I probably shouldn't have said that it's not a civil rights issue, but in a way it kinda depends how you define the minority and how you see homosexuality. It's not that gay people can't get married; they just can't get married to the person that they want to. I'm not saying that gay men should marry women; obviously that wouldn't work, but they still have the opportunity to do so. Again I see this more in line with trying to marry your own sister rather than marrying out of your race; I know the interracial thing is relevant, but it's tough to compare since I don't think there was ever even a semi-solid argument against it.

Yeah, that's true. The thing is I'm not convinced this is necessarily a discrimination issue because gay people still do have the right to get married, even if they never would. It's the same as telling pot-smokers well, you've always got cigarettes. They wouldn't. But right now, the government doesn't cater to their preferences, and that doesn't make them necessarily discriminated against.


I'm not saying they shouldn't be changed. I for one support it. I'm just saying thats the way they are now.


It exists because it's a biblical institute. The laws came in place to protect the mothers who didn't work. If you want to argue about reducing marriage benefits, well I'm on board with that, too. You have to recognize where the argument is. I hear a lot that gays feel like they can't make that lifelong commitment since they can't marry each other; you can commit if you want, you can be in a loving and caring relationship without a piece of paper. The issue is that they don't get the marriage benefits that were introduced mainly to protect women.

Either way, I don't really want to get roped into further debate about this; like I said, I think that gay marriage should be allowed. I merely defended those who think it shouldn't be.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

Thing is, it's not just * the benefits, but also the protection of certain legal issues that protect both parties in the relationship.


*I finally figured out the italics shit now!!!! :eek:

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

my god are we still on about midgets and goat fucking?

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

No, just you.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

You're cherry-picking to suit your argument again, as well as skirting the central point. Sure you can't legislate against spousal abuse much more than what's already on the books, but you could legislate against meaningless shotgun weddings that play a role in high divorce rates. And anti-same sex marriage people could put as much public energy into fighting spousal abuse as they seem to put into stopping the gays from getting married. Yet there's an inordinate amount of attention being heaped on same sex marriage as being some kind of "threat" that marriage apparently needs to be defended from. That's where the central point I mentioned really comes in. Spousal abuse, shotgun weddings, and high divorce rates are all actual threats to marriage, while gays marrying is not. Yet the "Defense of Marriage" act, prop 8 and such say nothing about abuse, shotgun weddings, or divorce - they only legally define marriage as being between a man and a woman. In my opinion, this is further evidence of shady motives on the part of the anti-same sex marriage crowd, because all that's really being threatened is the gay-free bubble that many of these people seem to want to live in.

Honestly, I used to think that bigotry was less of a problem than I do now, but I've had numerous rude awakenings throughout my life that have shown me just how alive and well it is in this country.

Gays getting married are not analogous in any way to mental patients getting guns, and I think most gay folks would take issue with you on it. As for your analogy's counter-argument, it's confusing and irrelevant since the analogy is fundamentally flawed.

Are you really in support of same sex marriage? I find it increasingly hard to believe when you make a comparison like the gay/mental patient one above, or to marrying a goat, or many of the other statements and analogies you've made along the way.

I never said that. Not sure what led you to believe I did. But to answer, I'm sure they care about the divorce rates, but I don't know exactly how much because all I ever hear them talking about is why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. That's the point. What's so scary about same sex marriage that all these other marriage issues seem to be secondary to it?

Well clearly, on this aspect of things, you're just going to shape definitions and concepts into what they need to be to suit your arguments, so there's not much I can say. I mean really, "it kinda depends how you define the minority and how you see homosexuality"? If we can't even be on the same page about what a clear-cut term like "minority" means, or whatever you're saying about homosexuality here, then how can anyone understand where you're coming from enough to respond?

As for the siblings argument you keep coming back to, that in large part comes down to my personal belief that homosexuality is a genetic trait. Of course that has yet to be indisputably proven, but frankly, I believe the evidence points pretty solidly in that direction. So accepting that as my personal stance, I'd go on to say that people aren't born genetically predisposed to only be sexually attracted to their sister or brother. People who want to hook up with siblings probably just need to get out and meet some new folks. Gays don't have the choice to just un-gay themselves and hook up with girls instead of guys and vice versa.

And the fact that there was never a semi-solid argument against interracial marriage actually gives it even more in common with the idea of same sex marriage, because there are no good arguments against it either....or at least none I've ever heard.

Again, we may differ on the issue of genetics versus choice, so in my opinion, the cigarette/weed analogy is irrelevant. It's not about catering to "preferences" to me, it's about acknowledging the rights of a minority group. I mean technically, you could say that legalizing interracial marriages was just "catering to the preferences" of the interracial couples who wanted to marry, but that severely short-changes the discriminatory aspect of the issue. Hell, ending slavery could be called "catering to the preferences" of slaves and those who opposed slavery, but is that an adequate representation of the situation?

What makes same sex couples discriminated against is that they, as a minority group, aren't allowed basic rights enjoyed by straight people through no fault of their own, and they are at a financial, social, and even health-related disadvantage as a result. That is classic discrimination in every sense of the word.

But you didn't answer my central question. Where can I see these "rules" about what marriage is that you keep referring to?

No, marriage is a social institution that exists in different forms throughout virtually all groups, religious or not. And the legal benefits that accompany marriage have been shaped over the years to support the unique needs of all married couples, not just those with a stay-at-home wife and/or mother.

As for your argument about "a piece of paper", all I can say is that I'm beginning to think that maybe you're not married? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think anyone who's experienced marriage would pretty plainly see the differences between even a committed unmarried relationship and one in which you make the public, legal commitment of transforming a girlfriend/boyfriend into a family member. It's a whole other level of commitment - one that has even proven to have inherent financial, social and health benefits outside of those that are legally granted to hetero couples. Just check out the article I previously linked to see more details on that.

Look, I'm always thrilled to hear opposing viewpoints, especially if they explain reasonable motives I wasn't previously aware of. But in defending those who oppose same sex marriage, in my opinion at least, you've primarily succeeded in highlighting just how thin their arguments against it are. The "slippery slope" argument, or "marriage is for procreation", or "it's not necessary", or "gay people can legally marry, just not with people of the same sex" - these are all so flawed as to imply unspoken, underlying motivations, or as already stated, ignorance at the very least.

And for the record, no one's trying to rope you into anything I don't think. You chose to defend a certain point of view and some of us chose to take it on. I'm happy to continue discussing it if you'd like, but I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything.

Re: is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?
 

you have the patience of job, my man.