Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?

02/25/2007 10:33:23 PM · #751

Originally posted by noraneko:

And as for the argument that gay marriage will lead to legal unions involving bestiality and pedophilia - what a lame sham to attempt to cover the same tired discrimination that once led people to speak out against interracial marriage. Gay marriage, like straight marriage, is between consenting adults. Consenting adults being the key.

I can't believe you are being so narrow minded and intolerant. If my dog and I love each other, we should be allowed to be married, and we should be afforded all the legal rights that come with marriage.

Who are YOU to limit marriage to a union between consenting adult humans??? The conservative narrow-mindedness on this website really just floors me.

Message edited by author 2007-02-26 08:53:46.

02/25/2007 11:06:49 PM · #752

Originally posted by Louis:

Do you honestly believe there is a potential for people to ask to extend the meaning of marriage to mean a union between one human and one animal, with all the afforded legal rights and obligations? If you do, I believe you are being disingenuous and disruptive.

Why the hell not? It's a logical (and interesting) extension of the argument that any two people should be allowed to marry.

100 years ago, any argument that two men should be allowed to marry probably sounded "disingenuous and disruptive", too.

Note: I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality or gay marriage. But I am troubled by the fact that many gay-marriage proponents so self-righteously insist on broadening the definition of marriage, but only to the point that it fulfills their agendas. Try to broaden the definition any further, and they suddenly start acting like the "right wing" people that they so fervently ridiculed.

Also note: I don't want to marry my dog. I am very happily married to a lovely human who I hope to be able to spend the rest of my life with.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/25/2007 11:16:41 PM · #753

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Also note: I don't want to marry my dog. I am very happily married to a lovely human who I hope to be able to spend the rest of my life with.

Maybe it's your wife who married the dog. :P

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/25/2007 11:17:45 PM · #754

If your dog were considered a "consenting adult" -- with all the other rights of a citizen, like to enter contracts, get a driver's license, pay taxes, then perhaps this argument would have some meaning.

Right now, two adults, who are now othrwise considered indistunguishable under the law, are nevertheless prohibited from entering into a certain contractual relationship with each other -- and are therefore denied certain government benefits and protections -- merely on account of their physical gender. [u]That[u] is the discriminatory aspect of this.

Right now the law allows two people to enter into this legal relationship -- not more than two people, not people and animals, not people and non-consenting adults or children. However, it still discriminates against certain people solely on the basis of their gender, in contrast to every other non-discrimination law on the books. That is why it is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue at all.

Message edited by author 2007-02-25 23:19:26.

02/25/2007 11:40:00 PM · #755

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Also note: I don't want to marry my dog. I am very happily married to a lovely human who I hope to be able to spend the rest of my life with.

Maybe it's your wife who married the dog. :P

Aint that the truth ;)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/25/2007 11:52:45 PM · #756

OK, OK, I admit I'm being a little "tongue in cheek" with my argument, but I think I'm just trying to put gay marriage proponents "in the shoes" of the right wing. Try to understand their perspective, rather than just bash it.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/26/2007 12:11:47 AM · #757

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

One finds it difficult to understand a perspective that seeks to remove or restrict rights, rather than expand them. It is not incumbent on those seeking equal rights to somehow understand narrow-mindedness, let alone accept it.

Baron152

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2007 01:07:19 AM · #758

This is a non-argument, the second example being mere bluster. Do you honestly believe there is a potential for people to ask to extend the meaning of marriage to mean a union between one human and one animal, with all the afforded legal rights and obligations? If you do, I believe you are being disingenuous and disruptive.

Why is this only a non-argument for you. Why am I being denied my chance to marry my idea of a spouse. Why are you so intolerant of me. After all, until 1973, homosexuality was a deviant sexual behavior. Why am I now on YOUR side of the argument. Now you are calling me a sexual deviant because me and Fido are in love.

If I want to marry a child, why not? Why are you so intolerant of this argument. 50 years ago you would have been looked on the same way. Maybe I am now being progressive. I have personally spoken to 9 year old children that truly believe that they are in love with 50 year old men and that they should be able to be married. (7 years as an expert sex crimes investigator, allowed to testify as an expert in child sex abuse cases in Florida, New Jersey and Ohio) How dare you judge me. If I was gay then you would be eviscerated but because I am a child lover you despise me. (same as gays 50 years ago)

What if I want to marry 5 or 10 women. who are you to address it. Why is it only wrong if I am for it. (and you aren't) You have already shown your intolerance. According to you, if I believe and I find a small minority to support it, then, I should be allowed to do it.

Let me quote you in the same context "Do you honestly believe there is a potential for people to ask to extend the meaning of marriage to mean a union between two people of the same sex, with all the afforded legal rights and obligations?"

You had "Do you honestly believe there is a potential for people to ask to extend the meaning of marriage to mean a union between one human and one animal, with all the afforded legal rights and obligations?" I am telling you yes right now. Have you just become as intolerant of me as I was previously of you.

Sucks when this happens, doesn't it. Tolerant, if I agree but not tolerant if I don't. Where are you? What do you think. Where do YOU stop the madness.

WOW, when you look at it this way, it seems I may be right. YOU CAN NOT BE TOLERANT AND INTOLERANT AT THE SAME TIME. pick one and stick to it. Allow me to love whoever or what ever I want or don't. I will then do the same for you. Be progressive or conservative, you just can't be both.

Scares the SH*T out of you that you may be conservative on some things, doesn't it.

This is not a gay/straight argument. This is an argument where you need to draw he line. You "tolerant" people can't have it only your way. Accept it all or accept the standard. Anything less makes you intolerant and prejudiced.

My only point on all of this, is don't be so easy to pick a side unless you think of all of the sides. I have been dealing with this argument in one way or another for 20+ years and it is still the same.

If you are the consummate Liberal, then offer up your child, there will be hundreds of thousands of takers. Just don't be consumed with a BS argument and sit on the fence.

Take a stand, a real one, not just one that only looks at your biases and predjudices.

Life is a line and you and I take a stance. There are people to the right of me and to the left of me. Depending on where you are, people are going to take a stand against you, for you or with you. Sometimes you have to fight for your position. If you don't want to fight for it, don't put it out there.

NikonJeb writes;

My 6th grade daughter was attacked on her school bus and hazed because she had a Freedom to Marry button on her bookbag.....I mentioned this before.....and I had to explain to her about intolerant assholes and how this boy was learning fear and ignorance at home.

He fails to understand that he may be the intolerant one. He is spouting an apparent idea that others may disagree with and he has allowed his child to post "HIS" beliefs on an open forum and he got her jammed up for it. Obviously the "beater" appears to be right of the "victim" but I am sure that the "beater" has people to the right of him, who may attack him for his leftist views and the victim has people to the left of her that she may choose to attack because she is not tolerant of all other views. (her views are from dad as she is too young to form her own, but maybe not to old to fallin love---depending on whether you are right or left of her parents outlook) Now I'm confused.

The weirdest part of this is that the most tolerant, by the book, liberal, name callers are the least tolerant, not by the book, conservative name callers I have ever seen.

Are you right or left seems to be the question. One you can never answer unless you know who you are in a room with.

Still just my 2 cents

Message edited by author 2007-02-26 01:43:55.

02/26/2007 01:34:16 AM · #759

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Originally posted by noraneko:
And as for the argument that gay marriage will lead to legal unions involving bestiality and pedophilia - what a lame sham to attempt to cover the same tired discrimination that once led people to speak out against interracial marriage. Gay marriage, like straight marriage, is between consenting adults. Consenting adults being the key.

I can't believe you are being so narrow minded and intolerant. If my dog and I love each other, we should be allowed to be married, and we should be afforded all the legal rights that come with marriage.

Who are YOU to limit marriage to a union between consenting adults??? The conservative narrow-mindedness on this website really just floors me.

Never mind..

Message edited by author 2007-02-26 01:37:38.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2007 02:00:58 AM · #760

Baron152..

I have to admit that I'm pretty much shocked just about speechless by your ranting. That 90% of it is baseless doomcrying is putting it mildly at best.

The fact that children can be manipulated into believing anything the manipulator wants them to is real, and a huge problem. But to use it.. and your so called "expert" experience in child abuse cases to compare such a thing to two adults falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together under the same laws and rights as two other adults doing the same thing is not only a stretch.. but almost downright sociopathic in a way. There are certainly very fine lines when it comes to children of advanced ages, lines which have wavered for the entire existence of human society... but to honestly put forth that same-sex marriage is a keystone to pedophiles marrying children (or any similar non-adult human consentual coupling) is just off the charts.

Your insistence that a person has to either A) accept everything or B) accept nothing.. is just as baseless.

If society actually ran that way.. we'd have ceased to exist as a species long ago. In the case of A, we'd have destroyed ourselves through pure anarchy. In the case of B, we'd never have gotten out of the stone age.. or before.

It's one of humanity's greatest achievements that we can intelligently decide what is best for us, for the most part. We can draw lines.. but we can move them when we need to. We can be tolerant of things that make sense to be tolerant of.. and intolerant of those things that are harmful or destructive. That's what we *DO*.

As for NikonJeb.. your insinuation that it was *his* fault his daughter was harrassed shows just what kind of person you really are down deep. When the first black people decided to fight against segregation.. it was *their* fault that many of them were killed and tortured as well, right? When the first Christians decided to practice their religion in the face of Roman rule.. it was *their* fault they were killed and tortured for doing so. When the first Jewish people were put to death by Nazi.. oh.. sorry, Godwin's Law.. but you get the idea.

You're right about one thing.. this isn't a gay/straight argument.. it's a *human* argument. While we, as humans, will always have to fight against groups of people that feel they deserve something that most of humanity doesn't think they deserve.. we have a pretty good track record of eventually realizing which things really are worth denying people.. and which ones we say no to.. and society is coming to realize, today, that same-sex couples deserve the right to be just as happy as anyone else.. and we will still continue to believe that in most of the other instances.. it is *not* right.. for a very many good reasons.

What the future holds for us is anyone's guess.. but denying something that has no tangible reason to deny simply because of fears that have no tangible reason to be fears.. is never the way we should live and grow as human beings.

Baron152

Canon EOS-40D

02/26/2007 03:13:24 AM · #761

Originally posted by Artyste:
Baron152..

I have to admit that I'm pretty much shocked just about speechless by your ranting. That 90% of it is baseless doomcrying is putting it mildly at best.

The fact that children can be manipulated into believing anything the manipulator wants them to is real, and a huge problem. But to use it.. and your so called "expert" experience in child abuse cases to compare such a thing to two adults falling in love and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together under the same laws and rights as two other adults doing the same thing is not only a stretch.. but almost downright sociopathic in a way. There are certainly very fine lines when it comes to children of advanced ages, lines which have wavered for the entire existence of human society... but to honestly put forth that same-sex marriage is a keystone to pedophiles marrying children (or any similar non-adult human consentual coupling) is just off the charts.

Your insistence that a person has to either A) accept everything or B) accept nothing.. is just as baseless.

If society actually ran that way.. we'd have ceased to exist as a species long ago. In the case of A, we'd have destroyed ourselves through pure anarchy. In the case of B, we'd never have gotten out of the stone age.. or before.

It's one of humanity's greatest achievements that we can intelligently decide what is best for us, for the most part. We can draw lines.. but we can move them when we need to. We can be tolerant of things that make sense to be tolerant of.. and intolerant of those things that are harmful or destructive. That's what we *DO*.

As for NikonJeb.. your insinuation that it was *his* fault his daughter was harrassed shows just what kind of person you really are down deep. When the first black people decided to fight against segregation.. it was *their* fault that many of them were killed and tortured as well, right? When the first Christians decided to practice their religion in the face of Roman rule.. it was *their* fault they were killed and tortured for doing so. When the first Jewish people were put to death by Nazi.. oh.. sorry, Godwin's Law.. but you get the idea.

You're right about one thing.. this isn't a gay/straight argument.. it's a *human* argument. While we, as humans, will always have to fight against groups of people that feel they deserve something that most of humanity doesn't think they deserve.. we have a pretty good track record of eventually realizing which things really are worth denying people.. and which ones we say no to.. and society is coming to realize, today, that same-sex couples deserve the right to be just as happy as anyone else.. and we will still continue to believe that in most of the other instances.. it is *not* right.. for a very many good reasons.

What the future holds for us is anyone's guess.. but denying something that has no tangible reason to deny simply because of fears that have no tangible reason to be fears.. is never the way we should live and grow as human beings.

Artyste,

Thanks for biting on the premise. My argument is not baseless and doomcrying, it is dead on.

I am not denying anyones love or belief or their abililty to be together, I am only saying that if someone is truly in love they don't need to be married. The fact is that mariage is way oversold and the fight that some one has to be married to express their love is crazy. Marriage is only a civil union that is accepted by the church. NOTHING MORE.

My main point is exactly as yours, children can be manipulated and will fight to the end to take part in a relationship if they believe it to be an honest relationship. Depending on the age, they will run away, make false allegations, accuse their parents and siblings of crimes and do whatever it takes to stay wih their abusers. Its not being a "so called" expert. I have done this since 1986 and understand it better then you ever could.

You are the one who is the amatuer pretending to have a clue about this, not me. I question your "children of advanced ages" statement because as an adult you have to be the one to say "NO" not the child. I've never known that line to waiver but maybe that means that on this subject I am THE EXPERT and to the right of you. (You are definetly to the left of me on that.) I guess the question is what your age of consent is. When do you get on the right of someone else. You may think 17 is the line that "wavered" for you and someone else may think 15. Someone else will give you 12, or 10 or 9 or 7. NAMBLA says sex after 8 is too late. There are NO "very fine lines when it comes to children of advanced ages" as far as I am concerned. Children are children, you may justify it, but I don't, which may explain your angry response. Sometimes you just have to say no. Thats what being the adult is all about.

Strange thing is that I am being more tolerant then most of the tolerant people here.

If your statement that "if society actually ran that way" was true then we wouldn't be here because it was exactly true. You need to check upon history and some of the deviant behavior that society has exhibited. In the middle ages, the behavior I have pointed out was common place.

You state that It's "one of humanity's greatest achievements that we can intelligently decide what is best for us, for the most part. We can draw lines.. but we can move them when we need to. We can be tolerant of things that make sense to be tolerant of.. and intolerant of those things that are harmful or destructive. That's what we *DO*." My question is what gives you the right to decide. I, obviously, as a human being of the same rights as you, disagree with what you have stated about that wavering line. What makes you right and me wrong? I have a real problem with the "wavering line" Why should I allow you, a 33 year old man, alone with my 16,or 17 year old child, when you believe in a "wavering line".Why should I allow you to make me feel bad about my beliefs if I am not allowed to make you feel bad about your beliefs.

Why am I the jerk and you aren't just because you have the progressive view.

I didn't insinuate that NikonJeb got his daughter jammed up, I stated it as fact. She is a child and is parroting what her parents believe just as my children did until they became old enough to figure it out on there own. Not a jab at him but a statement of fact. Are you willing to argue that a 12 year old was arguing her own beliefs. I think not. If you don't want your children to have to defend your beliefs then be responsible. Thats all.

Then you want to go through black people being tortured along with the Christians and then the Jews. And, no I don't get the idea. People like you like to throw in a bunch of stuff to muddy everything up but it doesn' work that way. I don't care if blacks or Jews or Christians get married (go back to the original argument)

I do care if animals and adults and children and adults and bunches of adults and gays get married. (Be glad to have the other argument if you want)

As for your argument that gays are not happy if they can't be married in a religeous ceremony, I think that's BULL. Most of the gays I know are very happy and really don't care about marriage as long as they have equal rights to everything their straight friends have. I agree with that. (actually they have more where I am from) In my area, gays are allowed "partner" rights but straight people "male/female" are not. (the lawsuit is in the works)

STILL just my 2 cents.

Message edited by author 2007-02-26 03:25:46.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/26/2007 03:21:30 AM · #762

Originally posted by Baron152:

STILL just my 2 cents.

and the whole response proof that you didn't really read what I said in any real cognitive way.

You'll just have to go on living in whatever reality it is you find yourself in.

Arty out.

Baron152

Canon EOS-40D

02/26/2007 03:44:13 AM · #763

Originally posted by Artyste:

Originally posted by Baron152:

STILL just my 2 cents.

and the whole response proof that you didn't really read what I said in any real cognitive way.

You'll just have to go on living in whatever reality it is you find yourself in.

Arty out.

See, there you go again,

I read it all, quoted it, dissected it, explained it, it and gave a response to each of you points. You should try it. Its all about other ideas and thoughts.

To dismiss it as you try to do is disingenuous.

Problem as usual is that you don't want to explore anything other then what you believe and I'm all about what other people are all about. I make this argument because I believe in it and because of that I am able to defend it. Anyone who sees your response will know that I did read and respond to each one of your points. I just didn't do it in a way that you liked

I may not agree but I will never try to negate your views with a simple dismissal and a shot that you are in another universe just because I don't have an argument.

If you believe in something, you should be able to argue your point.

You did however make my argument about the anger thing quite nicely, so thank you for that.

02/26/2007 05:31:52 AM · #764

Here's why I say it's proof you really didn't read anything.. bit by bit. Your penchant for twisting anything to the way you want to see it is impressive, but in the end, meaningless.

Originally posted by Baron152:

Artyste,

Thanks for biting on the premise. My argument is not baseless and doomcrying, it is dead on.

- Really? Let's take a look at this:

Originally posted by Baron152:

I am not denying anyones love or belief or their abililty to be together, I am only saying that if someone is truly in love they don't need to be married. The fact is that mariage is way oversold and the fight that some one has to be married to express their love is crazy. Marriage is only a civil union that is accepted by the church. NOTHING MORE.

- A need is not what is at issue here. As you said, nobody *needs* to get married.. but some choose to. Whether or not they should be able to either inside, or outside a church, has no basis on any *need* whatsoever.. so bringing it up in those terms is .. pointless. Churches should, and can (under Canadian law anyway), decide for themselves who they will marry. This is working quite well. All you're doing is twisting words to deny people something by saying that they shouldn't want it. Huh?

Originally posted by Baron152:

My main point is exactly as yours, children can be manipulated and will fight to the end to take part in a relationship if they believe it to be an honest relationship. Depending on the age, they will run away, make false allegations, accuse their parents and siblings of crimes and do whatever it takes to stay wih their abusers. Its not being a "so called" expert. I have done this since 1986 and understand it better then you ever could.

- I get the feeling that perhaps your experiences with the darker side of society in this respect may be clouding your judgements on other things. I know a person fairly well that was a police officer for 20 odd years. His experiences dealing with that job have made him an incredibly bitter and judgmental person. Almost to the point where he's unable feel anything other than rage over just about anything. Reading what you write.. is like hearing this guy talk every day.

Originally posted by Baron152:

You are the one who is the amatuer pretending to have a clue about this, not me. I question your "children of advanced ages" statement because as an adult you have to be the one to say "NO" not the child. I've never known that line to waiver but maybe that means that on this subject I am THE EXPERT and to the right of you. (You are definetly to the left of me on that.) I guess the question is what your age of consent is. When do you get on the right of someone else. You may think 17 is the line that "wavered" for you and someone else may think 15. Someone else will give you 12, or 10 or 9 or 7. NAMBLA says sex after 8 is too late. There are NO "very fine lines when it comes to children of advanced ages" as far as I am concerned. Children are children, you may justify it, but I don't, which may explain your angry response. Sometimes you just have to say no. Thats what being the adult is all about.

- There *are* fine lines. Cultures throught the ages crossed those lines repeatedly, and many are on either side of it now. *Our* society says 18.. for the most part. At least as far as marriage is concerned. But even that isn't set in stone. You can get legally married at 16, with parental consent, in some places. Even 14 in some places. How is this "never wavered" as you'd put it? Personally, I don't agree on one ultimate set age. As humanity is a complex entity, so are individuals.. and where one person might be ready for a complex commitment at one age.. another person may not be, and may never be. Who am I to set limits? I'm not.. but I think the people in that person's life, working *with* that person, would be able to. To the second point, you're right.. and adult has the responsibility to say no.. and I forward that the majority of adults do.. and this works, and has worked, ON A WHOLE, for generations. Bad things happen, but it isn't an excuse to scream that because certain outcast groups.. like NAMBLA.. have some ideas, that it'll suddenly become perfectly acceptable. Finally.. I don't believe I was ever angry in any way, ever. The beauty of textual conversation is that you can read whatever you want into a response.

Originally posted by Baron152:

Strange thing is that I am being more tolerant then most of the tolerant people here.

- And you proved that by first saying that people shouldn't want to get married, and then by somehow lumping a 17 year old possibly marrying in with NAMBLA members trying to find acceptance for their statements. The biggest point here is that the majority of young people that marry, are to other young people... where NAMBLA and others like them are entirely about adult/child relationships. Taking what you say, however, is that a 17 year old marrying a 17 year old is just as bad as some 30 year old wanting an 8 year old. Now, I *know* that isn't what you're saying, but it's what comes across in that previous paragraph. That's some kind of tolerance.

Originally posted by Baron152:

If your statement that "if society actually ran that way" was true then we wouldn't be here because it was exactly true. You need to check upon history and some of the deviant behavior that society has exhibited. In the middle ages, the behavior I have pointed out was common place.

- This tells me that you completely either misread what I said, or disregarded it. You said, quote: "Accept it all or accept the standard." My response was that if we accepted it all.. anarchy would rule. And it would. On the flip side, if everyone *always* accepted the standard.. we would never have grown as a species in any way. There is always a middle ground. We've definitely gone through periods of deviant behaviour of varying degrees, but even in the Middle Ages, groups and societies existed that were forward thinkers, and society came out of it. The very thought that everyone has to "accept the standard" as you say, is just plain ridiculous.

Originally posted by Baron152:

You state that It's "one of humanity's greatest achievements that we can intelligently decide what is best for us, for the most part. We can draw lines.. but we can move them when we need to. We can be tolerant of things that make sense to be tolerant of.. and intolerant of those things that are harmful or destructive. That's what we *DO*." My question is what gives you the right to decide. I, obviously, as a human being of the same rights as you, disagree with what you have stated about that wavering line. What makes you right and me wrong? I have a real problem with the "wavering line" Why should I allow you, a 33 year old man, alone with my 16,or 17 year old child, when you believe in a "wavering line".Why should I allow you to make me feel bad about my beliefs if I am not allowed to make you feel bad about your beliefs.

- This one is just "huh"? This entire statement was about society slowly coming to terms with same-sex marriages.. or whatever term you care to use.. but you misread it, possibly deliberately, as my thinking I should have the right to marry someone of any age.. that's just.. wow. The "wavering line" I referred to has to do with what society at large believes is "adult".. and I've already pointed out that it does indeed waver. It has nothing at all to do with how I personally feel about anything. You're projecting, and bad. As for what makes *me* right, and *you* wrong.. nothing. I'm not claiming to be "right".. I'm just trying to keep an open mind about something (and to be clear, I mean same-sex marriage *SPECIFICALLY*), and making points in the hopes that others may do the same.

Originally posted by Baron152:

Why am I the jerk and you aren't just because you have the progressive view.

I didn't insinuate that NikonJeb got his daughter jammed up, I stated it as fact. She is a child and is parroting what her parents believe just as my children did until they became old enough to figure it out on there own. Not a jab at him but a statement of fact. Are you willing to argue that a 12 year old was arguing her own beliefs. I think not. If you don't want your children to have to defend your beliefs then be responsible. Thats all.

- The point I was trying to make originally is that the responsibility for her being attacked lies on the attacker, not the parent of the child, nor the child. My point is that if people stopped being so angry and aggressive towards whatever it is they don't believe in in the first place, things like this wouldn't happen.. no matter what a 12 year old chooses to mimic or believe. You also don't have any proof whatsoever that NikonJeb's daughter didn't come to her decision by independent means.. either because of school, some sort of group she may belong to, or her peers.. or just by doing some reading and coming to her own conclusions, which, btw, a 12 year old is fully capable of doing. However misguided sometimes. You jumped to conclusions, blamed a person erroneously, even if you refuse to see it, and I had to address that.

Originally posted by Baron152:

Then you want to go through black people being tortured along with the Christians and then the Jews. And, no I don't get the idea. People like you like to throw in a bunch of stuff to muddy everything up but it doesn' work that way. I don't care if blacks or Jews or Christians get married (go back to the original argument)

I do care if animals and adults and children and adults and bunches of adults and gays get married. (Be glad to have the other argument if you want)

- Again, just jumping right over everything and claiming it's "muddying everything up" instead of thinking about it for a minute.
I'll give you a clue.. Every single one of my examples has something in common with the whole fight over same-sex marriage. The fact that almost the exact same arguments were made against all of these things then, as are being made against it now. In the case of segregation.. it was against societal norm (and we can throw slavery into this mix.. and inter-racial marriages). It was against your precious standard. Same with religious and ethnic cleansings. I don't see how that is muddying anything up. Just because *you* want to lump gay people (a coupling which consists of two adult, consenting, fully capable people.. with no difference whatsoever between blacks, jews, and christians), with animals, children and multiple groups of people.. (the last of which is an entirely different subject in and of itself), doesn't mean that it isn't the same thing that has gone on repeatedly throughout history.

Originally posted by Baron152:

As for your argument that gays are not happy if they can't be married in a religeous ceremony, I think that's BULL. Most of the gays I know are very happy and really don't care about marriage as long as they have equal rights to everything their straight friends have. I agree with that. (actually they have more where I am from) In my area, gays are allowed "partner" rights but straight people "male/female" are not. (the lawsuit is in the works)

- and another mis-representation. Name anywhere I said that all gays weren't happy not being married in a religious ceremony. I've never even mentioned that *marriage* has to be a religious ceremony. Many of my relatives were very legally married.. with that word.. by a Justice of the Peace, without any religion involved. Still called marriage. Nobody seems to cry foul over that. However, yes.. a good number of gay people *are* unhappy with being treated as second-class citizens and, for whatever reason that is their business, want to get married and believe they will be happier for it. I just don't understand why anyone would want to get in the way of that... and you haven't put one single argument out yet that .. even when I try to keep an open mind about it.. comes close to explaining a valid reason against it.

Originally posted by Baron152:

STILL just my 2 cents.

- Leave it in the "Have a Penny" dish on your way out. :)

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/26/2007 05:48:26 AM · #765

Originally posted by Baron152:

I agree with you here - I am pretty sure that most pro-gay marriage proponents are arguing for an equal and equivalent form of union for gay people. I don't think that anyone is arguing that your local vicar should be forced to marry gay people, or bless their union if it is fundamentally against his belief system (arbitrary though that may be).

Once again, the really important thing to understand is "what do you mean by 'marriage'?". A civil union that equates to marriage in every legal respect would surely simply be known as marriage - I genuinely don't understand what additional connotations arise as a consequence of the name (a rose by any other name...).

Baron512 - you claim to have no objection to "civil union". However, you also claim slippery slope arguments - is it therefore fair to say that you think that civil union for gay people will quickly devolve into civil union for bestialists, paedophiles and polygamists?

I think that the bestial and paedophile arguments are highly tenuous: the nature of the legal right could not be replicated for an animal, and society has a duty to protect children because they do not have a fully developed mind to be able to make these kind of important decisions. It is unlikely that anything similar to marriage could or should be replicated for those groups.

The polygamy argument is hard to argue against (indeed, there appears to be little that is morally wrong with it). It is probably an issue of practicality (e.g. pension schemes are calculated based upon certain assumptions, including the possibility of just one surviving spouse) as well as an element of social engineering.

None of this explains why the law should not accord gay unions with the same respect as heterosexual unions.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/26/2007 09:19:48 AM · #766

Originally posted by Baron152:

You had "Do you honestly believe there is a potential for people to ask to extend the meaning of marriage to mean a union between one human and one animal, with all the afforded legal rights and obligations?" I am telling you yes right now.

Well, then you're just nutty.

Originally posted by Baron152:

Sucks when this happens, doesn't it. Tolerant, if I agree but not tolerant if I don't. Where are you? What do you think. Where do YOU stop the madness.

Generally, when real intolerance rules the day, not made-up intolerance that only serves to advance your opinion, but lacks any kind of substance.

Originally posted by Baron152:

WOW, when you look at it this way, it seems I may be right.

Sorry. It doesn't. It merely makes you look foolish.

noraneko

Canon EOS R5

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/26/2007 09:35:44 AM · #767

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:

Sorry, I don't think your "tongue-in-cheek" argument really works here. Would you also ask me to "try to understand" the perspective of someone opposed to interracial marriage because "it is also a valid viewpoint?" Would you ask me to "try to understand" the perspective of someone who advocated "separate but equal" facilities for people of different ethnic backgrounds?

The fact is, I would have no issue with some guy named John marrying his dog Fifi except for one *small* point - Fifi cannot give her consent to this union, so we don't know if it works for Fifi or not. In fact, it could be considered abuse since Fifi cannot give her consent and it could end up harming Fifi.

Surely you are able to see the distinction between people trying to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a union based on their own narrow viewpoint and a person trying to enter into a union with a dog when one of the parties directly effected has no choice.

Message edited by author 2007-02-26 09:37:56.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/26/2007 09:59:23 AM · #768

Originally posted by noraneko:

except for one *small* point - Fifi cannot give her consent

I am not sure that this is the main point: it matters relatively little whether a dog consents to marriage, or is forced into it (if that has any meaning). The big issue is that marriage involves the rearrangement of a variety of legal and financial rights between two people - rights and obligations that dogs cannot exercise or hold (incidentally, nor can children in many cases). The concept is impossible for dogs.

It is desireable in the case of adults who wish to enter into a binding commitment to each other (regardless of their sex).

I heard an interesting discussion on the radio the other morning. One point that was raised was that it is a relatively recent concept that people marry for love - historically, it tended to be a contractual arrangement between families for mutual benefit without significant regard for love (for want of a better comparator, an arranged marriage). Existing rules stem from that background. It is in the context of romanticism and the modern growth in marriage for love, as well as the non-discrimination and equality movements, that homosexual parity has an increasing part to play.

noraneko

Canon EOS R5

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/26/2007 10:13:11 AM · #769

Matthew I agree that the legal and financial rights are paramount to this issue, as the lack of these rights for homosexuals who cannot legally marry is the cornerstone of how this type of discrimination affects them in the practical sense. However, I can't agree that consent is not also a big factor in refuting the (generally) right-wing arguement that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, pedophilia, etc. That being said, I staunchly believe that the bestiality and pedophilia argument is nothing more than a sham to justify blatant discrimination, as it really is a non-argument when analyzed for even five minutes.

02/26/2007 10:26:37 AM · #770

Originally posted by noraneko:

Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
OK, OK, I admit I'm being a little "tongue in cheek" with my argument, but I think I'm just trying to put gay marriage proponents "in the shoes" of the right wing. Try to understand their perspective, rather than just bash it.

Sorry, I don't think your "tongue-in-cheek" argument really works here. Would you also ask me to "try to understand" the perspective of someone opposed to interracial marriage because "it is also a valid viewpoint?" Would you ask me to "try to understand" the perspective of someone who advocated "separate but equal" facilities for people of different ethnic backgrounds?

I would say that "trying to understand" where someone who disagrees with you is coming from is never a bad thing. I'm not equating "understanding" with "agreeing". It's difficult, and I'm probably just as guilty as anyone else of not really trying to understand opposing points of view. As far as the gay marriage issue goes: although I personally feel that gay marriage is probably a good thing, and I do support it, I can see why some people would have a problem with it. I have a harder time understanding why people would be opposed to "civil unions".

Originally posted by noraneko:

Surely you are able to see the distinction between people trying to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a union based on their own narrow viewpoint and a person trying to enter into a union with a dog when one of the parties directly effected has no choice.

Yes, I am able to see the distinction.

Matthew