Discussion: Gay Rights II

[cerealkiller182]

its called a prenup. if it was legal he'd have one

Not necessarily. They are optional. They are powerful but NOT the final word.

[spideyboy_1111]

Not necessarily. They are optional. They are powerful but NOT the final word.

no, there's always exceptions, but exceptions are rare.

[cerealkiller182]

i've honestly never heard that before. There's a reason why they exist, and if all sides sign a contract, it means they agree to it. that's a fundamental basis for law period.

People have been coerced into contracts in the past

[Paradoxium]

Google it up, they can throw out prenups. Might be regional, although I pretty certain Cali is one of those states that includes it.

I bring it up, because straight marriages have 50% divorce rate. In Cali, it is 80%. If you are a gambler, how would you like these odds of 80%? Especially if you end up on the wrong end of the divorce. But jmanspice called me a human calculator for thinking like this. I still think these statistics says a lot about what marriage is nowadays, gay straight whatever.

[cerealkiller182]

edit

no, there's always exceptions, but exceptions are rare.

Im not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of contract law after one semester of Business law, but the one thing I definitely know is that it is in no way as cut and dry as you present it to be.

[Paradoxium]

Once children enter the equation, the prenup becomes even more useless. IIRC it has no jurisdiction over that matter.

Here is a recent and publicized example: http://www.markseff.com/abc-news-interview.html

[spideyboy_1111]

People have been coerced into contracts in the past

its still holds up more then it doesnt. plus why are we discussing this anyway? same things can happen between a normal 1 on 1 marriage as well.

[AnimatedFury]

Polyandry or Polygamy or whatever can be viewed as a form of fraud. Party A (man) basically decreases the property right of Party B (woman) in favor of a uninvolved Party C (woman). That's the cliff notes version of it.

Gay incest is a problem though, since the reproduction issue is not there
Gay incest is never a problem!

J/p it is weird.

[spideyboy_1111]

Once children enter the equation, the prenup becomes even more useless. IIRC it has no jurisdiction over that matter.

Here is a recent and publicized example: http://www.markseff.com/abc-news-interview.html

well the kids wouldn't be an issue in a poly marriage imo... it'd go to the biological parents or there next of kin before anyone else...

[cerealkiller182]

its still holds up more then it doesnt. plus why are we discussing this anyway? same things can happen between a normal 1 on 1 marriage as well.

Right. Its already a problem. Now take the problem and multiply it by 5 per person.

[spideyboy_1111]

Gay incest is never a problem!

J/p it is weird.

lol i wont lie... twin brothers is hot... but thats more on a biological standpoint as to having sex with yourself i suppose lol

[spideyboy_1111]

Right. Its already a problem. Now take the problem and multiply it by 5 per person.

meh i think you guys are just over complicating it. I don't find it that big of an issue... I think even if it was legal, it'd be a rarity anyway.

[Matt]

This thread has taken a disturbing turn.

[cerealkiller182]

meh i think you guys are just over complicating it. I don't find it that big of an issue... I think even if it was legal, it'd be a rarity anyway.


I dont find it as big of an issue either. I said I didnt really care that much, but theres obvious complications. I just dont think a "sure, why not?" attitude is the right approach.

[spideyboy_1111]

o please... i've heard countless of strait guys say they've been turned on by twin girl porn.. the whole incest thing seems to go out the window when dealing with twins for some reason

[spideyboy_1111]

I dont find it as big of an issue either. I said I didnt really care that much, but theres obvious complications.

well yes, but i just kinda find it stupid we went on over a page tangent about it. Divorce is always complicated, gay,strait or multiple spouse, adding some more complication or not.. shouldn't really matter if the people want it, and are in love

[Marx]

Let's leave the porn talk out of this guys.

[Matt]

o please... i've heard countless of strait guys say they've been turned on by twin girl porn.. the whole incest thing seems to go out the window when dealing with twins for some reason

As someone who had a twin, I respectfully disagree. Incest is gross regardless.

[spideyboy_1111]

As someone who had a twin, I respectfully disagree. Incest is gross regardless.

as someone who had a twin you'd probably be the minority :-P


alright so back on topic.
sadly the DOMA protest today in LA for Obama's visit was pretty low... my friend went and guessed only about 200.

[Paradoxium]

I only brought up the matter because of a legal consistency and precedence problem. Like I said, there is a good case against polygamy legally, but I can't think of one against incest (non-reproductive scenarios).

[spideyboy_1111]

I only brought up the matter because of a legal consistency and precedence problem. Like I said, there is a good case against polygamy legally, but I can't think of one against incest (non-reproductive scenarios).

i still don't see why polygamy is even brought up whenever gay marriage is. Gay marriage legally would be the same as a strait marriage. I don't get why people over complicate it.

[CaptainClown]

Hey now, whats all this then..Incest? twins? Can we throw polygamy and pedophilia in there while we are at it.

[Paradoxium]

People argue gay marriage would somehow set the stage for polygamy, or along those lines. Hence my legal argument against the difference of that, and say to gay/straight marriage.

[wiegeabo]

People argue gay marriage would somehow set the stage for polygamy, or along those lines. Hence my legal argument against the difference of that, and say to gay/straight marriage.

And those people are falling for the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Gay marriage and polygamy are two completely separate issues.

One deals with two people getting married the same way two other people can already get married.

One deals with multiple people getting married when that's not allowed at all.

[Marx]

I was watching Larry King Live earlier and there was an interesting debate at the beginning of the show between Pastor McPherson and a gay author (Liefer?) about gay marriage.

The pastor basically kept saying that gay families breed criminals because there is no mother AND father.

Larry took him to task pretty well though.

[CaptainClown]

There is no found research if gay parents create criminals. It is just neglectful parents and bad surroundings.... Oh well education is neglected.

[spideyboy_1111]

I was watching Larry King Live earlier and there was an interesting debate at the beginning of the show between Pastor McPherson and a gay author (Liefer?) about gay marriage.

The pastor basically kept saying that gay families breed criminals because there is no mother AND father.

Larry took him to task pretty well though.

i don't get people like this... are they completely oblivious to all the single parented families out there? Or the fact there's been no documented proof that gay family's breed a higher percentage of criminals then strait? my god... stupid morons and there scare tactics.

[Marx]

There is no found research if gay parents create criminals. It is just neglectful parents and bad surroundings.... Oh well education is neglected.

The whole line of thinking is just idiotic. It's a slap in the face to gay parents and single parents.

[Paradoxium]

Lack of father figures can increase the odds of delinquency (I DON'T doubt there are exceptions), based on the criminology literature I have read. Of course this can also apply to straight marriages. AND a father figure does not have to equate with biological ones.

[Marx]

i don't get people like this... are they completely oblivious to all the single parented families out there? Or the fact there's been no documented proof that gay family's breed a higher percentage of criminals then strait? my god... stupid morons and there scare tactics.

The pastor sounded like a broken record. That's all he could say. 'Gay families breed criminals', 'Marriage is an institution meant for the creation of life', blah blah blah.

[Paradoxium]

The whole line of thinking is just idiotic. It's a slap in the face to gay parents and single parents.Well not necessarily for gay parents, but maybe single parents. Although single parents can find a father figure for the child.

[Marx]

Lack of father figures can increase the odds of delinquency (I doubt there are exceptions), based on the criminology literature I have read. Of course this can also apply to straight marriages. AND a father figure does not have to equate with biological ones.

That's the whole point. It's not like there are not mother/father figures in the lives of children who have gay parents.

[Wiseman]

The whole line of thinking is just idiotic. It's a slap in the face to gay parents and single parents.

I do think that single parent households breed more criminals, there are stats to back that up..........however, that has nothing to do with gay people having kids. I actually think there would be less children of gay people living in a single parent household because most of them probably wouldn't have kids until they are settled down. Unlike straight people

[Paradoxium]

I do think that single parent households breed more criminals, there are stats to back that up..........however, that has nothing to do with gay people having kids. I actually think there would be less children of gay people living in a single parent household because most of them probably wouldn't have kids until they are settled down. Unlike straight peopleWiseman you are correct. In fact there is a huge literature on serial killers and rapists and a chunk of them come from single mother families. Oddly not as much from single fathers. At least that's how it trends, again there are exceptions of course, but it does not negate general trends.

[spideyboy_1111]

The pastor sounded like a broken record. That's all he could say. 'Gay families breed criminals', 'Marriage is an institution meant for the creation of life', blah blah blah.

i really hope many bigots like those end up having gay children. that's the only way there ever going to change there minds imo

[Marx]

i really hope many bigots like those end up having gay children. that's the only way there ever going to change there minds imo

I would feel sorry for those children.

[spideyboy_1111]

I do think that single parent households breed more criminals, there are stats to back that up..........however, that has nothing to do with gay people having kids. I actually think there would be less children of gay people living in a single parent household because most of them probably wouldn't have kids until they are settled down. Unlike straight people

see this is debatable to me, because i'd be willing to guarantee that 90% of those "single parent" families were broken families. Broken families put alot of stress on the parent as well as the child. Thats completely different situation then a single woman deciding she wants to have a test tube baby

[spideyboy_1111]

I would feel sorry for those children.

i would too, but its honestly the best way to change a parents opinion. out of love. Hell my aunt and uncle did a complete 360 when my cousin turned out to be a lesbian

[Marx]

see this is debatable to me, because i'd be willing to guarantee that 90% of those "single parent" families were broken families. Broken families put alot of stress on the parent as well as the child. Thats completely different situation then a single woman deciding she wants to have a test tube baby

Or single people who choose to adopt. I can see the argument both ways (with respect to single parent households,) I just think it's insulting. It all comes down to good parenting. In my view, it has nothing to do with the makeup of the family.

[CaptainClown]

I know families who disown those children

[Paradoxium]

i would too, but its honestly the best way to change a parents opinion. out of love. Hell my aunt and uncle did a complete 360 when my cousin turned out to be a lesbian360? They hate lesbians :huh:

[Marx]

i would too, but its honestly the best way to change a parents opinion. out of love. Hell my aunt and uncle did a complete 180 when my cousin turned out to be a lesbian

...but there are also people who turn their backs on their gay children.

[spideyboy_1111]

I know families who disown those children

don't get me wrong, some do, and some will.. but you'd be surprised at least in this day and age how many actually do come around eventually.

[Wiseman]

see this is debatable to me, because i'd be willing to guarantee that 90% of those "single parent" families were broken families. Broken families put alot of stress on the parent as well as the child. Thats completely different situation then a single woman deciding she wants to have a test tube baby

Or single people who choose to adopt

I agree with both of you, but that factors into a very small amount of single parent households so it's almost a non-factor.

[spideyboy_1111]

...but there are also people who turn their backs on their gay children.

im aware of that, as stated before... and those people can't be changed... but there certainly in the minority. People who are willing to give up there kids forever, will never change there mind.

[spideyboy_1111]

I agree with both of you, but that factors into a very small amount of single parent households so it's almost a non-factor.

but the comparison of "single parent households" is made up of a majority of "broken" house holds. You can't compare that to having 2 dads or 2 moms.

[spideyboy_1111]

360? They hate lesbians :huh:

lol, i meant 180 :-P u know that

[CaptainClown]

In the hispanic community, I know so many families which have disowned their children for being gay. Sure this day and age is different but for those without an education its harder to understand.

[Wiseman]

but the comparison of "single parent households" is made up of a majority of "broken" house holds. You can't compare that to having 2 dads or 2 moms.

Right, I'm agreeing. The priest is the one who made the comparisons. I stated that a child would be better off in a household with 2 dads or 2 moms then be a part of a broken household

[spideyboy_1111]

In the hispanic community, I know so many families which have disowned their children for being gay. Sure this day and age is different but for those without an education its harder to understand.

o i agree, just saying in general. it's the best way to change ones mind. If that doesn't do it, i honestly don't think anything will.

[Marx]

Right, I'm agreeing. The priest is the one who made the comparisons. I stated that a child would be better off in a household with 2 dads or 2 moms then be a part of a broken household

I just wish people who oppose gay rights would take a serious look at their arguments and realize why their arguments make no sense.

[wiegeabo]

I just wish people who oppose gay rights would take a serious look at their arguments and realize why their arguments make no sense.

Unfortunately, those arguments make perfect sense to them.

[Marx]

Unfortunately, those arguments make perfect sense to them.

'Gay marriage breeds criminals because there is no mother AND father'

Regardless of the makeup of the family, there are mother/father figures in the lives of children who have gay parents. It's all about good parenting, not the makeup of the family.

'Marriage is an institution for the creation of life'

Yet they overlook sterile couples and married couples who chose not to have children.

[Wiseman]

I just wish people who oppose gay rights would take a serious look at their arguments and realize why their arguments make no sense.

I do consider myself a conservative, however I wouldn't lose any sleep over giving gays the right to marry. However, as I have stated for years, I also think legal civil unions which would give gays the same rights as any married couple are the best way to go for everyone to be able to accept it. I think it's a fair comprimise for all parties. I personally love gay people, I have gay friends and one of my best friends is gay, so I am more on the left on this issue then most conservatives. Oh, and I know more straight people that are already crappy parents then I know gay people who would be.

[spideyboy_1111]

I do consider myself a conservative, however I wouldn't lose any sleep over giving gays the right to marry. However, as I have stated for years, I also think legal civil unions which would give gays the same rights as any married couple are the best way to go for everyone to be able to accept it. I think it's a fair comprimise for all parties. I personally love gay people, I have gay friends and one of my best friends is gay, so I am more on the left on this issue then most conservatives. Oh, and I know more straight people that are already crappy parents then I know gay people who would be.

sorry but whenever something is not EXACTLY the same... it's never fair. Even if it was only completely the name.

[wiegeabo]

'Gay marriage breeds criminals because there is no mother AND father'

So do straight marriages. Where do they think criminals come from?


'Marriage is an institution for the creation of life'


Tell that to married couples who don't want children.

[Marx]

I do consider myself a conservative, however I wouldn't lose any sleep over giving gays the right to marry. However, as I have stated for years, I also think legal civil unions which would give gays the same rights as any married couple are the best way to go for everyone to be able to accept it. I think it's a fair comprimise for all parties. I personally love gay people, I have gay friends and one of my best friends is gay, so I am more on the left on this issue then most conservatives. Oh, and I know more straight people that are already crappy parents then I know gay people who would be.

That's why I respect you Wise. You are a conservative, but you aren't hard right. You and StorminNorman are how the GOP should be.

How would you feel about marriage being seperated into 'Religious' and 'Common/Legal' marriage to accomodate gay marriage?

[Wiseman]

sorry but whenever something is not EXACTLY the same... it's never fair. Even if it was only completely the name.

Every gay person I know wouldn't care, not that they speak for everyone. And like I said, I don't have a problem with legalizing gay marriage. But you know what, giving them the same rights and calling it a civil union is the same thing. Why can't religious people just have the stupid name marriage, at that point you don't really care about equal rights, you just care about pissing off those people. Which is petty. Guess what, if a straight couple gets married in a court house, they eloped. It's still the same thing. Can't the stupid document just say civil union, it's not like if a gay person says they got married someone at their job is gonna say, "you mean got your union papers". Like I said, I don't care if it's legalized, I'm agnostic anyway so it doesn't affect what anyone in my religion would say either, but arguing over the name of it just reaks of petty

[Wiseman]

That's why I respect you Wise. You are a conservative, but you aren't hard right. You and StorminNorman are how the GOP should be.

How would you feel about marriage being seperated into 'Religious' and 'Common/Legal' marriage to accomodate gay marriage?

Yes, I would completely agree with that, in fact, your suggestion just nullified my last post

[spideyboy_1111]

Every gay person I know wouldn't care, not that they speak for everyone. And like I said, I don't have a problem with legalizing gay marriage. But you know what, giving them the same rights and calling it a civil union is the same thing. Why can't religious people just have the stupid name marriage, at that point you don't really care about equal rights, you just care about pissing off those people. Which is petty. Guess what, if a straight couple gets married in a court house, they eloped. It's still the same thing. Can't the stupid document just say civil union, it's not like if a gay person says they got married someone at their job is gonna say, "you mean got your union papers". Like I said, I don't care if it's legalized, I'm agnostic anyway so it doesn't affect what anyone in my religion would say either, but arguing over the name of it just reaks of petty

then you don't exactly know alot of gay people. In California a civil union is guaranteed nearly all the same rights as a marriage... one of our big issues is the fact that giving us a different name, is acting like "seperate is equal" and it's not... its just like having separate drinking fountains for the color of your skin. We want the same rights as everyone else.

I know many many many people here in California who would not be happy with settling for "the same thing" but with a different name.

[Schlosser85]

How would you feel about marriage being seperated into 'Religious' and 'Common/Legal' marriage to accomodate gay marriage?


What about religious gay couples?

[Cunning Stunts]

Yeah, I wondered about that. Do they take what they can get, or push for 100%?

[spideyboy_1111]

some churches are ok with performing gay marriages... so i'd assume if your gay... and religious, maybe you should follow a church that accepts you and doesn't make you feel like a sinner?

[moraldeficiency]

you can avoid a TV... you cant avoid 3,000 people blocking traffic.


anywho... for those who are interested... photos from last night

http://www.facebook.com/photos.php?id=60708042#/photo.php?pid=34456371&id=60708042

it should let you see without being my friend

Whoa, back the trolley cart up a minute. As big a supporter as I am for equal rights there is one thing I hate more than hateful morons and that's being made to wait for no reason. I'd honestly rather be burned with cigs then have to wait on a line at disney world and that right there is one of the few things you could do to get me to say "**** your cause" because I just don't see how pissing people off is gonna rally them to your point of view. As an example during the cuban riots a while back people blocked off the street. My response? I hit two of them with my jeep. Not hard, but hard enough.

Do you honestly expect people to sit back and have no reaction at all to something this important?

I expect people that have shown great political savy in the past to not act like they've been eating paint chips all week. They are no longer at the need attention phase of the movement, they are now at the debate and logic portion and this is a step backwards. Rather than piss people off show them why this is unjust. Lay out clean examples. They've used Mathew Sheperd as a polarizing figure to rally behind, they need something like that now. I'm sure they have a huge amount of people that have been ****ed over by this to choose from. The face of this debate shouldn't be guys dressed up funny screaming and waving posters while people honk angrily at them, it should be an old gay guy or lesbian that has been legitimately and concretely hurt because they couldn't get married to the person they love. Sympathy gets you further than pissing people off.

[Sloth7d]

I completely disagree (sort of . . . I'm not in favor of polygamous/polyandrous/incestuous marriages, either). Single parenthood has been shown to have financial, emotional, and--yes--legal consequences. But, we don't say that it is "too much of a burden for our government to allow to happen"

I'm not sure what legal consequences you're getting at for being a single parent, even though parenthood wasn't the main point I was addressing since a single person can't marry theirself, but I'll level with you.
I think what you're ingoring here is the significant difference of burden between a single parenthood and a polyandric/polygamist one. It's not hard for a court to decide where a child's custody belongs in the former, nor is it too hard to figure out who's covered by what parts of the insurance, or who inherits what in the case of someone's death.
However in the latters case, there is also the matter of who get's what in the case of divorce. Even in a union between only two individuals these can be big issues depending on the greed and pride of either side arguing. In a union of multiple persons, it becomes too big to sort out, and too complicated in deciding who deserves what more.
Let's go through some scenarios. If father A dies and Wife A and Wife B argue over who gets priceless his family heirloom, who does the judge offer it up to? Do we attempt to determine who he loved more as a deciding factor? If Wife A is married to another man, Husband B, while Wife B is ony married to Husband A, and the Judge is deciding how to split Husband A's assets between the two, would it be fair to give both half his total worth, even though Wife A has a secondary income source? Adding onto this already convoluted family, suppose husband A had a third wife, Wife C? Suppose Wife C also died, but left behind a child in the world with Husband A. Who does the child go to? Her imidiate relatives or or the other spouses? How do we determine custody of the child should Husband A and Wife C not have died? Are they all legal guardians of the one child, or are only Husband A and Wife C the legal guardians? How about tax forms? How many spouses are you allowed to claim on your tax forms before it's too much, and can you claim your spouses child that's by someone else? How about divorce again? Can Husband A claim that Wife B was cheating on him, and thus doesn't deserve as much money as she's asking during the divorce proceedings, even though he has two other wives? How do you determine if someone cheats, anyway? If a man is married to five wives, can all five have insurance on him, and he on all of them? If he dies or if all five of them die, how much is awarded?
For the children. How is a child supposed to react emotionally when he sees his father smooching on someone who's not his mom, then later smooching on his mom? How will the children act against each other in these relationships where favoritism of one wife or husband may occur more often than not? Or what about the wife or husband themself who may feel jealous of one of the spouses more often than not?
A multiple marriage situation opens the flood gates for this mess of legal, financial, and emotional turmoil, especially since by your standard it would be discrimination to put a cap on how many people one person can marry.

Modifications to contract law would allow for a better handling of how to proceed in a divorce case involving one of the "poly's"--disposition of assets, parental visitation rights and legal/financial responsibilities, etc.

Those modifications would be imbalanced as to determining who gets what one way or another due to each marital situation varying in the number of spouses and children involved.
Giving more examples; if the main link between 5 spouses dies, and all 5 spouses are all determined to be of equal worth to his estate, but the total sum of his worth is not divisible by 5, how do we determine what goes where?

If you are going to say that two (or more) consenting adults can't get married for a particular reason, then you are doing the exact same thing as "man-woman only" marriage proponents (and I'll freely admit that I am one)--you are engaging in a discriminatory practice.

Difference is, I'm giving completely logical reasons as to why I believe polygamy and polyandry is wrong.
Giving completely moral reasons, as with what I've seen from this conservative crowd against gays, is completely subjective and more along the lines of discrimination.

[Sloth7d]

There's a pretty clear reason as to why incest should be illegal (pertaining to reproduction), but I'm having trouble figuring out why polygamy should be illegal.

Thing is, incestuous couples can go through the same routines gay couples do to get a healthy child, so you can't really single them out like that.

[Paradoxium]

The "Freemarket" or "Capitalist" solution is similar to what some have already cited.

Take government out of the business of handing out "Marriage Licenses". The government would create legal union contracts to both straight or gay couples. Tax benefits, and all those hospital stories would be rectified HERE.

The churches would hand out a separate religious marriage license. Now say if Church A does not like gay marriages, they are not obligated to hand it out. But Chuch B is gay friendly, they would hand one out. This applies to straight marriages, churches would not be obligated either give marriages to straight couples too (i.e. criterion of their own, for an example they have to be religious and not secular). Hence free market solution.

In order to reconcile this massive change without gigantic headaches, all previous marriages become both legal unions and religious marriages.

To me, the notion of marriage should be left to society to decide on their own. This also diffuses the power away from the government and further separates church from state, which as a classic liberal I am all for.

[Carcharodon]

Thing is, incestuous couples can go through the same routines gay couples do to get a healthy child, so you can't really single them out like that.Sure you can. Homosexuals are biologically incapable of producing a child with one another. An incestuous couple is not, and that can have severe developmental/genetic consequences for the kid.

If the incestuous couple was rendered unable to reproduce or were required by law NOT to have sex, then it wouldn't be a problem....but that course of action would be ridiculous, so it's really better to prevent them from being able to marry in the first place.

I see no such comparable reason to prevent gays from marrying.

[Carcharodon]

Gay incest is a problem though, since the reproduction issue is not thereThat's a great point, although I think there would still be a blanket ban on incestuous marriages in general.

[Paradoxium]

I would to be clear with people here. I do not advocate incest, and I find the notion really nasty. But to play devil's advocate...

If the argument of having children and birth defects is such a concern with incestuous relationship, one must address this similar situation in women having children after 30. Because after this age, the potential for birth defects are pretty high, and it escalates even further with each year.

[Wiseman]

Sure you can. Homosexuals are biologically incapable of producing a child with one another. An incestuous couple is not, and that can have severe developmental/genetic consequences for the kid.

If the incestuous couple was rendered unable to reproduce or were required by law NOT to have sex, then it wouldn't be a problem....but that course of action would be ridiculous, so it's really better to prevent them from being able to marry in the first place.

I see no such comparable reason to prevent gays from marrying.

In all fairness though, the argument that gay marriage should be legalized and that it won't lead to people marrying animals or children is the fact that gay marriage would be between two consenting adults and therefore doesn't compare to that. Well if cousins or brother and sister want to get married and they are over 18 doesn't that count as two consenting adults. Why are those adults not allowed to marry when they're in love and yet gay people are? Some straight people think being gay is wrong. So why is that discrimination and yet because most straight and gay people consider incest wrong it is not considered discrimination. It's 2 consenting adults. Shouldn't they have the same rights as any other adult. And studies have found out that unless there are years upon years of inbreeding there is a very small chance of brain damage in a child.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

[Carcharodon]

I would to be clear with people here. I do not advocate incest, and I find the notion really nasty. But to play devil's advocate...

If the argument of having children and birth defects is such a concern with incestuous relationship, one must address this similar situation in women having children after 30. Because after this age, the potential for birth defects are pretty high, and it escalates even further with each year.How high are the risks by comparison, though? I'd be interested to learn that. Not only that, but perhaps there is a difference in the relative severity and nature of the defects. I mean, I know Trisomy-21 becomes more likely in children of older women, but I'm not sure what specific defects come about via incest.

[BlackLantern]

why are we even talking about incest??

seriously

[Carcharodon]

In all fairness though, the argument that gay marriage should be legalized and that it won't lead to people marrying animals or children is the fact that gay marriage would be between two consenting adults and therefore doesn't compare to that.I never realized brothers and sisters never reached adulthood.

Well if cousins or brother and sister want to get married and they are over 18 doesn't that count as two consenting adults.Ah, here you go. You keep jumping around, it's hard to follow your line of reasoning.

Why are those adults not allowed to marry when they're in love and yet gay people are? Some straight people think being gay is wrong. So why is that discrimination and yet because most straight and gay people consider incest wrong it is not considered discrimination. It's 2 consenting adults. Shouldn't they have the same rights as any other adult.That's not the issue.

And studies have found out that unless there are years upon years of inbreeding there is a very small chance of brain damage in a child.Source? Besides, if we set a precedent allowing incestuous marriages, the potential for an inbreeding population continuing for several generations becomes much larger.

[Carcharodon]

why are we even talking about incest??

seriouslyWe're addressing a common argument against gay marriage. Seems pretty logical to me.

[Paradoxium]

How high are the risks by comparison, though? I'd be interested to learn that. Not only that, but perhaps there is a difference in the relative severity and nature of the defects. I mean, I know Trisomy-21 becomes more likely in children of older women, but I'm not sure what specific defects come about via incest.Besides increased odds of Downs Syndrome (which you already mentioned), miscarriages, more difficult pregnancies and here is the big one: fertility problems for female children. This latter one I recall reading a bit on it, and it surprised me a lot. I do not know how well developed the literature on it is, but I think it very unfair to the female children because the mother made a risky decision that falls its consequences on the girl.

[Paradoxium]

Okay I googled this up

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-412407/Women-risk-passing-infertility-children-delay-motherhood.html

[Carcharodon]

Besides increased odds of Downs Syndrome (which you already mentioned), miscarriages, more difficult pregnancies and here is the big one: fertility problems for female children. This latter one I recall reading a bit on it, and it surprised me a lot. I do not know how well developed the literature on it is, but I think it very unfair to the female children because the mother made a risky decision that falls its consequences on the girl.There's a much greater level of impracticality in either:

1) Stopping aging

or

2) Preventing women from having sex after thirty

...than there is in preventing family members from marrying.

I love your argument, though.

[Carcharodon]

Okay I googled this up

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-412407/Women-risk-passing-infertility-children-delay-motherhood.htmlIt makes sense, but there are admitted confounding variables in that study. I'd love to see a study with the general population.

[wiegeabo]

We're addressing a common argument against gay marriage. Seems pretty logical to me.

The whole argument that gay marriage necessitates legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages is a fallacy.

Gay marriage is about expanding a currently legal activity (namely marrying a single, non-family member) to include all citizens, not just heterosexuals. In otherwords, equal protection under the law.


Polygamy and incest is about legalizing currently illegal activities. It's a completely separate argument that doesn't have any bearing on gay marriage. And if someone brings them up when arguing against gay marriage, that's all you need to say. They don't apply to this issue. They are their own topics, so I'd think that would be enough to keep them out of this thread (they can have their own discussion threads).

[Carcharodon]

The whole argument that gay marriage necessitates legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages is a fallacy.

Gay marriage is about expanding a currently legal activity (namely marrying a single, non-family member) to include all citizens, not just heterosexuals. In otherwords, equal protection under the law.


Polygamy and incest is about legalizing currently illegal activities. It's a completely separate argument that doesn't have any bearing on gay marriage. And if someone brings them up when arguing against gay marriage, that's all you need to say. They don't apply to this issue. They are their own topics, so I'd think that would be enough to keep them out of this thread (they can have their own discussion threads).Then let a mod decide whether we can discuss it here. It's not like we're excluding the topic of gay marriage from our debate. We're trying to establish differences that go deeper than just, "it's currently illegal."

So either let us have this conversation or have a mod decide. That's all I'm saying.

[StorminNorman]

The whole argument that gay marriage necessitates legalizing polygamous or incestuous marriages is a fallacy.

Gay marriage is about expanding a currently legal activity (namely marrying a single, non-family member) to include all citizens, not just heterosexuals. In otherwords, equal protection under the law.


Polygamy and incest is about legalizing currently illegal activities. It's a completely separate argument that doesn't have any bearing on gay marriage. And if someone brings them up when arguing against gay marriage, that's all you need to say. They don't apply to this issue. They are their own topics, so I'd think that would be enough to keep them out of this thread (they can have their own discussion threads).

Well I support rights for Polygamists, so I am going to argue this point.

In California, same sex marriage is illegal. So you were asking the court to overturn an illegal practice.

If Polygamist enjoy the same equal protection under the law that normal couples do, they should be allowed to marry multiple loving wives.

[Marx]

What about religious gay couples?

That would be a decision left up to the church. That being said, the suggestion of differing marriage certificates in no way suggests that 'Common/Legal' marriages are somehow not religious.

I expect people that have shown great political savy in the past to not act like they've been eating paint chips all week. They are no longer at the need attention phase of the movement, they are now at the debate and logic portion and this is a step backwards. Rather than piss people off show them why this is unjust. Lay out clean examples. They've used Mathew Sheperd as a polarizing figure to rally behind, they need something like that now. I'm sure they have a huge amount of people that have been ****ed over by this to choose from. The face of this debate shouldn't be guys dressed up funny screaming and waving posters while people honk angrily at them, it should be an old gay guy or lesbian that has been legitimately and concretely hurt because they couldn't get married to the person they love. Sympathy gets you further than pissing people off.

Not everyone who is protesting is 'dressed up funny' or acting like 'they've been eating paint chips all week'.

[Marx]

Let's keep this discussion civil guys. There is no need for name calling. Only warning.

[Carcharodon]

Let's keep this discussion civil guys. There is no need for name calling. Only warning.:up:

Although I'm a bit irritated that you deleted those posts. He did make a good point the second time around.

[Marx]

Then let a mod decide whether we can discuss it here. It's not like we're excluding the topic of gay marriage from our debate. We're trying to establish differences that go deeper than just, "it's currently illegal."

So either let us have this conversation or have a mod decide. That's all I'm saying.

While polygamy and incest have no direct bearing on gay marriage, those two topics are often used in the argument against gay marriage.

[Marx]

GROUP TARGETS NEW YORK SAME-SEX MARRIAGE BILL IN NEW ADS
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/28/group-targets-new-york-same-sex-marriage-bill-in-new-ads/

The National Organization for Marriage is out with new television and radio ads in New York as the state's senate is considering legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage.

"New York Consequences," a 30 second television spot and a 60 second radio spot, focus on hypothetical consequences of recognizing same-sex unions on equal terms with traditional marriages.

"Legalizing gay marriage has consequences for kids," TV ad says.

"Massachusetts schools teach second graders that boys can marry other boys. A California public school took first graders to a same-sex wedding."

"The rights of people who believe marriage means a man and a woman will no longer matter. We'll all have to accept gay marriage whether we like it to or not," both ads also say.

The ads are being supported by a $100,000 ad buy in Long Island and the Albany-Schenectady area, according the National Organization for Marriage. The initial ad buy runs from May 28 through May 31, the group also said.

The New York State Assembly recently passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. New York Gov. David Paterson has said he will sign the bill if the state Senate also passes it.

The new ads end with a request for viewers and listeners to call their state senators and express their opposition to same-sex marriage.

[Wiseman]

I would be very suprised if the gay marriage bill doesn't get passed in NY, then again I didn't think prop 8 would pass. But I don't think it would've without Obama's help

[Mister Sinister]

NOM and their lies repulse me to my very core.

[moraldeficiency]

Not everyone who is protesting is 'dressed up funny' or acting like 'they've been eating paint chips all week'.

That's true but we both know with protests its always the crazies that make the most noise that get the most attention and coverage. Regular people get lumped in with overly passionate attention seekers.

Anyone acting as a speed bump has been eating paint chips. They'd be lucky if I gave them the curosity of slowing down.

This kind of thing is a step back and about the only way you could convince me, a straight guy that believes in equal rights, to just hate a cause supporting them.

[Marx]

That's true but we both know with protests its always the crazies that make the most noise that get the most attention and coverage. Regular people get lumped in with overly passionate attention seekers.

Anyone acting as a speed bump has been eating paint chips. They'd be lucky if I gave them the curosity of slowing down.

This kind of thing is a step back and about the only way you could convince me, a straight guy that believes in equal rights, to just hate a cause supporting them.

That's true, MD.

[Paradoxium]

I thought over the argument of gay marriage towards polygamy and incest marriages as a case of the slippery slope fallacy. This is true on some level. But, legal actions can lead and induce to similar later action aka precedence. This is one of the few cases to norm, where tangible and consequential induction happens. However if you continue to push this argument, it presents a huge problem for gay marriage supporters.

I don't think gay marriage supporters would want to use this argument, because by this virtue, gay marriage qualifies as a slippery slope. The secular utilitarian logic goes, that marriage is a role of birthing and raising children, this utility is not an empirical observation of Western civilization or Christianity only, but for other civilizations as well. It just so happens to overlap with some religious traditions, and this is the difference between this and religious arguments.

Thus to be consistent, two infertile straight couples cannot produce a marriage. Much like two people of the same sex cannot get together and create new life to raise together. I am not saying sterile and gay couples can't raise children, or have sex with each other: they just can't birth AND raise. This is the only difference and common denominator of any material concern. There is nothing to stop a gay man from marrying a woman, or a gay woman from marrying a man to meet these criteria.

The slippery slope fallacy comes into play by arguing gays should be inclusive to this phenomenon since like a straight marriage it is two loving and consenting adults, and can raise children. It misses the most common denominator and purpose: birthing AND raising children. The utility of this is raising the population, and gay and sterile couples cannot achieve this, PERIOD. So with all this considered, marriage is a privilege and not a right, and not all couples are entitled to marriage (i.e. sterile and gay ones).

So if I were to support the slippery slope fallacy as an argument, I cannot support gay marriages based on this internal logic. If I were to accept it, I must also find ways to support and debunk other forms of marriage, aka Incest and polygamous ones. I can still retain the legal argument against polygamy. And use the same scientific argument against incest and have no problem reconciling gay incest marriage now.

So if you guys are telling me not to do this because of the slippery slope fallacy, you might have just unintentionally pushed me to the other direction. I swear to god, it has nothing to do with bible thumping. I am socially liberal.

I never put much thought on how I should resolve this until now. I am more of an economic whore :o

And for **** sake, take this argument as a whole written piece and not break it down into sentences, with paragraph replies which is conducive to throwing statements out of context. Otherwise I am not going to read it. I will make the habit not to do the same.

[Carcharodon]

Why does the criteria for marriage have to include birthing? That's a pretty lofty assumption.

[Paradoxium]

From a non-religious logical induction. It's main purpose to raise population and diversify the gene pool simultaneously. The birth and raise part seems to be the only common denominator. No children = no future.

Most village style children raising environments (no parents) are not very dominant historically, and does have a higher propensity for dysfunction.

That said, I am for gay marriages. Its my way of presenting the counter-factual to the slippery slope thing.

[Carcharodon]

From a non-religious logical induction. It's main purpose to raise population and diversify the gene pool simultaneously. The birth and raise part seems to be the only common denominator. No children = no future.

Most village style children raising environments (no parents) are not very dominant historically, and does have a higher propensity for dysfunction.

That said, I am for gay marriages. Its my way of presenting the counter-factual to the slippery slope thing.I'm having trouble understanding why the gay community would use the slippery-slope argument. That's classically been an argument used AGAINST gay marriage, so I'd appreciate it if you could define it in your specific context.

Secondly, your argument concerning the growth of the population and diversification of the gene pool doesn't make sense when you consider that marriage is an artificial construct. You can achieve both of those things naturally and without marriage.

The purpose of SEX is to increase the population size and generate genetic diversity. Not marriage.

[Wiseman]

The purpose of SEX is to increase the population size and generate genetic diversity. Not marriage.

So then what you are saying is that gay sex should be illegal since it has no purpose but gay marriage should be legal?

[Paradoxium]

I'm having trouble understanding why the gay community would use the slippery-slope argument. That's classically been an argument used AGAINST gay marriage, so I'd appreciate it if you could define it in your specific context.

Secondly, your argument concerning the growth of the population and diversification of the gene pool doesn't make sense when you consider that marriage is an artificial construct. You can achieve both of those things naturally and without marriage.

The purpose of SEX is to increase the population size and generate genetic diversity. Not marriage.Yes and no.

Polygamy, as far as a game of math is not good for diversifying the gene pool. I don't think I have to explain incest. Gays and gay incest are inconsequential since they don't birth any children.

Systematically, both normal (meaning no abuse) straight and gay couples, can raise children. Those village families are rare and are seldom successful historically, and like single parent families, they produce higher rates of delinquencies. Large criminology literature on this, one of the main keys is a "father figure" (not necessarily biological of course). What these structures offer consistently is a parent figure to maintain and protect the young. Birthing and leaving the children to fend is stupid.

You go down on another level, it boils down to the straight couple being able to reproduce and itself as a social utility. In essence it is a resultant of centuries of trial and error, and producing a system of birthing and raising children with the least quirks. The quirk of gay couples being, it can't produce children. Hence this construct.

I don't buy into every aspect of human being artificial, and cannot result into something that becomes reoccurring as say some feminist dogma suggest it not to be. Why? By virtue of the fact that gays exist. Feminist theory suggests all human thought, personality, choices etc... is artificial and even malleable, this implies gays have a free choice and non-biological factor in being gay. This is why it always confuses me as to why gay rights advocates and feminists side with one and another.

Hence this natural construct as marriage, and not having to deal with the derivative relationships. And the whole slippery slope issue.

You are right, I really do not understand why the gay marriage supporters who use the slippery slope argument against polygamy and incest, considering how counter intuitive it is.

[Carcharodon]

Yes and no.

Polygamy, as far as a game of math is not good for diversifying the gene pool. I don't think I have to explain incest. Gays and gay incest are inconsequential since they don't birth any children.

Systematically, both normal (meaning no abuse) straight and gay couples, can raise children. Those village families are rare and are seldom successful historically, and like single parent families, they produce higher rates of delinquencies. Large criminology literature on this, one of the main keys is a "father figure" (not necessarily biological of course).

You go down on another level, it boils down to the straight couple being able to reproduce and itself as a social utility. In essence it is a resultant of centuries of trial and error, and producing a system of birthing and raising children with the least quirks. The quirk of gay couples being, it can't produce children. Hence this construct.

I don't buy into every aspect of human being artificial, and cannot result into something that becomes reoccurring as say some feminist dogma suggest it not to be. Why? By virtue of the fact that gays exist. Feminist theory suggests all human thought, personality, choices etc... is artificial and even malleable, this implies gays have a free choice and non-biological factor in being gay. This is why it always confuses me as to why gay rights advocates and feminists side with one and another.

Hence this natural construct as marriage, and not having to deal with the derivative relationships. And the whole slippery slope issue.

You are right, I really do not understand why the gay marriage supporters who use the slippery slope argument against polygamy and incest, considering how counter intuitive it is.I'm not talking about polygamy or incest right now...I'm talking about marriage. I'm also not suggesting that all aspects of human thought and being are artificial (that's absurd).

So....none of this post actually counters what I said. :huh: And you still haven't made a case for marriage as a natural phenomenon, nor have you established sufficiently that marriage is required for population growth and genetic diversity (as you previously claimed). So I'm still confused by your argument.

[Paradoxium]

The better question I guess is, how is it not? As I said, it is a result of trial and error coalescing into this. It fullfills child birth, and raising/protecting a child. Gay couples can raise/protect a child, but it can't birth anything. Other alternatives lower chances of survivability and/or increases odds of delinquency and problems (i.e. single parents). :huh:

[Carcharodon]

The better question I guess is, how is it not? As I said, it is a result of trial and error coalescing into this. It fullfills child birth, and raising/protecting a child. Gay couples can raise/protect a child, but it can't birth anything. Other alternatives lower chances of survivability and/or increases odds of delinquency and problems (i.e. single parents). :huh:You can make the argument that monogamy is natural, but that says nothing of marriage; the two are quite distinct. Marriage is a social (and in many cases legal) contract. So if contracts are considered natural....

I'm still waiting to hear why marriage is necessary for increasing population size and increasing genetic diversity, and none of this supports the idea that a prerequisite of marriage is the ability to bear offspring.

[BlackLantern]

You can make the argument that monogamy is natural, but that says nothing of marriage; the two are quite distinct. Marriage is a social (and in many cases legal) contract. So if contracts are considered natural....

I'm still waiting to hear why marriage is necessary for increasing population size and increasing genetic diversity.

None of those fine young women on Maury are married....but they seem to be reproducing just fine

[Paradoxium]

You can make the argument that monogamy is natural, but that says nothing of marriage; the two are quite distinct. Marriage is a social (and in many cases legal) contract. So if contracts are considered natural....

I'm still waiting to hear why marriage is necessary for increasing population size and increasing genetic diversity.Ok I see where you are going.

I do not consider marriage to be a contract. Like "friendship" it is not a contract. Perhaps this will clarify things. This is why I support gay marriage; the contract changes the entire equation.

[Carcharodon]

Ok I see where you are going.

I do not consider marriage to be a contract. Like "friendship" it is not a contract. Perhaps this will clarify things.You have an interesting definition of marriage, then. Are you sure you're not simply referring to monogamy? That's more akin to friendship than marriage is.

[Wiseman]

None of those fine young women on Maury are married....but they seem to be reproducing just fine

Some of them aren't so young either. I guess trash doesn't mature with age.

[BlackLantern]

Some of them aren't so young either. I guess trash doesn't mature with age.

Nope....especially the ones that have 6 or 7 men on stage and still can't figure out who da daddy iz

[Paradoxium]

Monogamy that produces children is how I would qualify it. This is the lowest denominator.

[Carcharodon]

Monogamy that produces children is how I would qualify it. This is the lowest denominator.Based on what, though? Why is it necessary for a marriage to produce children? Is it based on your own personal definition?

[Paradoxium]

Based on what, though? Why is it necessary for a marriage to produce children? Is it based on your own personal definition?The induction I just gave out, and how it as a phenomenon that reoccurred through the course of history. This trend of monogamous relationships to birth children to raise and protect. Now keep in mind, I am not saying it is perfect, I am saying it reduced to this because the alternatives reduced itself to this. It is a more Darwinistic approach if nothing else. I am absolutely not basing it on Christian doctrine, especially considering I am not even Christian to begin with.

[Carcharodon]

Here's the problem: you've done a good job of explaining how marriage is beneficial in the pursuit of birthing/raising children, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that it is the sole purpose and definition of marriage.

[Marx]

Why does the criteria for marriage have to include birthing? That's a pretty lofty assumption.

That seems to be the way the religious community likes to describe it.

'Marriage is an institution meant for the creation of life'.

[Paradoxium]

Here's the problem: you've done a good job of explaining how marriage is beneficial in the pursuit of birthing/raising children, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that it is the sole purpose and definition of marriage.
As long as I can naturally reduce it to a common denominator. Whether it be "love" and/or sexual and so forth, it is all irrelevant. In fact I qualify that "love or romance" is not a requirement for marriage, this is why arrange marriages still happen to this day. I am trying to divorce it of any emotional or ambiguous appeal, and pin it on a cold and calculating utility. A simple utility to differentiate decisively.

I am trying to make a rational argument without resorting to religion. A mistake that social conservatives make (ironically I am a social liberal). Now whether you agree with this or not, or how I missed out on a element of emotion or love... it does not matter. As long as it is rational on some level, that is all that matters.

I hope people see where I come from.

[Paradoxium]

That seems to be the way the religious community likes to describe it.

'Marriage is an institution meant for the creation of life'.Yes but unlike them, I do not view it as a contract. And I am more agnostic with minor Buddhist influence :o

[BlackLantern]

http://gawker.com/5272253/white-house-arrests-hero-journalist

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Reporter-Dragged-Kicking-and-Screaming-From-Near-Air-Force-One-.html

2nd link is more detailed

I don't even know what to say

[Marx]

http://gawker.com/5272253/white-house-arrests-hero-journalist

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Reporter-Dragged-Kicking-and-Screaming-From-Near-Air-Force-One-.html

2nd link is more detailed

I don't even know what to say

Wow...

I'm not sure what's worse. That she tried to give the president this letter, or that national media outlets have yet to report what the letter was about...

[SentinelMind]

Here's the problem: you've done a good job of explaining how marriage is beneficial in the pursuit of birthing/raising children, but you've done nothing to demonstrate that it is the sole purpose and definition of marriage.

There will always be exceptions to every model...and those who despise maintaining heterosexual marriage will look for every possible exception to dismiss the model, but its pointless. The point is that marriage has the potential of raising children....even those who claim not to want children could potentially have children later on.....shoot ..teenagers who get knocked up use to consider shotgun wedding back in the day...that was a cultural norm. The point I think Paradoxium is making that tradition with good success record of raising next generation of Americans is a legitimate reason to keep the institution of marriage between a man and a woman alive,... even if there are some exceptions.

[Carcharodon]

There will always be exceptions to every model...and those who despise maintaining heterosexual marriage will look for every possible exception to dismiss the model, but its pointless. The point is that marriage has the potential of raising children....even those who claim not to want children could potentially have children later on.....shoot ..teenagers who get knocked up use to consider shotgun wedding back in the day...that was a cultural norm. The point I think Paradoxium is making that tradition with good success record of raising next generation of Americans is a legitimate reason to keep the institution of marriage between a man and a woman alive,... even if there are some exceptions.That's funny....he says he's pro-Gay-Marriage. Besides, our discussion stemmed from a side-discussion about comparisons between incest/polygamy and homosexuals with respect to the right to marry, not whether a man and woman vs. a man and a man are better at raising children. That was NOT part of our discussion.

So...swing and a miss! :yay:

[Carcharodon]

So then what you are saying is that gay sex should be illegal since it has no purpose but gay marriage should be legal?When the hell did I even IMPLY that? That's so far out of left field that my brain hurts.

No, that's not what I was saying. Not even remotely.

[Wiseman]

When the hell did I even IMPLY that? That's so far out of left field that my brain hurts.

No, that's not what I was saying. Not even remotely.

I'm sorry, I was having trouble following your logic

[spideyboy_1111]

http://www.accesshollywood.com/calif-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8-sparks-protests-may-27-2009_video_1112823

Dammit! lol, i didn't get to see Eliza Dushku! i would have killed to march next to Faith!

[Marx]

That's funny....he says he's pro-Gay-Marriage. Besides, our discussion stemmed from a side-discussion about comparisons between incest/polygamy and homosexuals with respect to the right to marry, not whether a man and woman vs. a man and a man are better at raising children. That was NOT part of our discussion.

So...swing and a miss! :yay:

Some of us were talking about the religious community's view that 'gay marriage breeds criminals because there is not a mother AND father'. We were talking about how it's not the genetic makeup of the parents that matters, but the fact that good parenting matters.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's true but we both know with protests its always the crazies that make the most noise that get the most attention and coverage. Regular people get lumped in with overly passionate attention seekers.

Anyone acting as a speed bump has been eating paint chips. They'd be lucky if I gave them the curosity of slowing down.

This kind of thing is a step back and about the only way you could convince me, a straight guy that believes in equal rights, to just hate a cause supporting them.

you're very quick to jump. I get that your with us and fighting for our rights, but you seem to have a tone of judgment whenever you criticize something like this. You give of an impression that protests are full of crazies or that we have people walking around as if it's a gay pride parade. There's been very very little of that. It's a tiny tiny tiny minority, so much of one that i don't even see them when watching the local news. Maybe my tolerancy is higher then yours, don't know, don't care. But I'm a firm believer in letting people be themselves. And i don't believe in forcing someone to tone down who they are. Thats a huge factor about being gay. Yes some go overboard... but just ignore them and let them be what makes them feel comfortable.

[spideyboy_1111]

double post

[spideyboy_1111]

From a non-religious logical induction. It's main purpose to raise population and diversify the gene pool simultaneously. The birth and raise part seems to be the only common denominator. No children = no future.

Most village style children raising environments (no parents) are not very dominant historically, and does have a higher propensity for dysfunction.

That said, I am for gay marriages. Its my way of presenting the counter-factual to the slippery slope thing.

Marriage has nothing to do with children... you can have children without marriage. I hate this damn assumption. If anything, marriage means family. Family is what you make it, whether it's just you and your husband/wife or the addition of kids. Family is what you make it. There's no concrete definition to this. Marriage is about love, and making a union between 2 people who hope to spend the rest of there lives together.

[Marx]

you're very quick to jump. I get that your with us and fighting for our rights, but you seem to have a tone of judgment whenever you criticize something like this. You give of an impression that protests are full of crazies or that we have people walking around as if it's a gay pride parade. There's been very very little of that. It's a tiny tiny tiny minority, so much of one that i don't even see them when watching the local news. Maybe my tolerancy is higher then yours, don't know, don't care. But I'm a firm believer in letting people be themselves. And i don't believe in forcing someone to tone down who they are. Thats a huge factor about being gay. Yes some go overboard... but just ignore them and let them be what makes them feel comfortable.

All MD is saying is that the extremists are always the ones shown in the media coverage. (And that is absolutely true.)

[spideyboy_1111]

All MD is saying is that the extremists are always the ones shown in the media coverage.

well thats fine and dandy and all... but honestly... i don't know if you're news is geared differently then mine.. but out of all the protest news i've seen there's been very little "crazy exposure". Hell in fact, i think the most crazy thing is what the black woman did today with obama... thank god she was on the other side though! lol

[Marx]

well thats fine and dandy and all... but honestly... i don't know if you're news is geared differently then mine.. but out of all the protest news i've seen there's been very little "crazy exposure". Hell in fact, i think the most crazy thing is what the black woman did today with obama... thank god she was on the other side though! lol

The only thing that I have seen from the latest round of protests that can be considered extreme was everyone sitting in the street blocking traffic. I, personally have not seen anything more than that. This time.

[spideyboy_1111]

The only thing that I have seen from the latest round of protests that can be considered extreme was everyone sitting in the street blocking traffic. I, personally have not seen anything more than that. This time.

That's not crazy though... that's a peaceful protest. People specifically do that when we want to take a street, but the cops wont let us. We sit, till they let us through. As someone who's been to at least 5 protests this is fairly common. If you stay on the path police want you to, the protest becomes more of a "guided parade" then a protest. And that isn't what one wants.

[Marx]

That's not crazy though... that's a peaceful protest. People specifically do that when we want to take a street, but the cops wont let us. We sit, till they let us through. As someone who's been to at least 5 protests this is fairly common. If you stay on the path police want you to, the protest becomes more of a "guided parade" then a protest. And that isn't what one wants.

My idea of a peaceful protest is standing on the side of the street with a sign saying some kind of clever saying...not sitting in the road like a speed bump or blockade. :cwink:

[Wiseman]

That's not crazy though... that's a peaceful protest. People specifically do that when we want to take a street, but the cops wont let us. We sit, till they let us through. As someone who's been to at least 5 protests this is fairly common. If you stay on the path police want you to, the protest becomes more of a "guided parade" then a protest. And that isn't what one wants.

So blocking streets that people have to drive down is peaceful? What if it was someone who voted against prop. 8 and they had to go pick their kid up from somewhere or it was an emergency and because of you something bad ended up happening to them? I bet they'd vote for prop. 8 to be upheld then

[spideyboy_1111]

My idea of a peaceful protest is standing on the side of the street with a sign saying some kind of clever saying...not sitting in the road like a speed bump or blockade. :cwink:

standing on a sidewalk is just about as effective as a candle vigil :o lame ass forms to get attention. Doesn't send out a big enough message, nor is it therapeutic for your own anger.

[Wiseman]

standing on a sidewalk is just about as effective as a candle vigil :o lame ass forms to get attention. Doesn't send out a big enough message, nor is it therapeutic for your own anger.

Pissing people off is a great way for them to sympathize with your cause.

[spideyboy_1111]

So blocking streets that people have to drive down is peaceful? What if it was someone who voted against prop. 8 and they had to go pick their kid up from somewhere or it was an emergency and because of you something bad ended up happening to them? I bet they'd vote for prop. 8 to be upheld then

1) all but 2 protests in LA have been after rush hour

2) one of them was extremely small, and the other actually very powerful. And was extremely moving ( the one the day after the election)

3) several were police sanctioned and they set up road blocks for us

4) were not blocking a highway.... its Los Angeles... the blocks arn't big, its not that hard to get around or bi pass a protest.

5) a protest is for a good cause, they block off streets in LA for much less important things on a weekly basis... like farmers markets, and street fairs.

[Marx]

standing on a sidewalk is just about as effective as a candle vigil :o lame ass forms to get attention. Doesn't send out a big enough message, nor is it therapeutic for your own anger.

Peacefully protesting does not involve the possibility of getting arrested.

Sidewalk protests are better than blocking streets and causing a disturbance.

[Marx]

1) all but 2 protests in LA have been after rush hour

2) one of them was extremely small, and the other actually very powerful. And was extremely moving ( the one the day after the election)

3) several were police sanctioned and they set up road blocks for us

4) were not blocking a highway.... its Los Angeles... the blocks arn't big, its not that hard to get around or bi pass a protest.

5) a protest is for a good cause, they block off streets in LA for much less important things on a weekly basis... like farmers markets, and street fairs.

There is a very clear difference between a legal street blockoff (like a farmer's market), and an illegal one (protesters that take matters into their own hands.)

[spideyboy_1111]

Pissing people off is a great way for them to sympathize with your cause.

honestly? your assuming way too much. I've heard very very little complaints about people getting angry over our protesting. Infact when we pass people in there cars many times the have the windows down cheering, and actually rooting us and enjoying it. Infact, the only people i've ever seen annoyed or pissed off are those who were against prop 8 and decided it was a good idea to try to be vocal about it during a protest march.

[Wiseman]

honestly? your assuming way too much. I've heard very very little complaints about people getting angry over our protesting. Infact when we pass people in there cars many times the have the windows down cheering, and actually rooting us and enjoying it. Infact, the only people i've ever seen annoyed or pissed off are those who were against prop 8 and decided it was a good idea to try to be vocal about it during a protest march.

Ok, well if I am blowing it out of proportion, and I hope I am, then I am sorry.

[spideyboy_1111]

There is a very clear difference between a legal street blockoff (like a farmer's market), and an illegal one (protesters that takes matters into their own hands.)

again, i've told you many have actually been sanctioned. Hell the mayor of FRIGGIN LA spoke at our rally and knew and sanctioned the march.

[spideyboy_1111]

Ok, well if I am blowing it out of proportion, and I hope I am, then I am sorry.

everyone on here is... and i find it kinda humorous considering nearly none of you have experienced it here.

[Marx]

again, i've told you many have actually been sanctioned. Hell the mayor of FRIGGIN LA spoke at our rally and knew and sanctioned the march.

As I said, it is different if it is a sanctioned event.

everyone on here is... and i find it kinda humorous considering nearly none of you have experienced it here.

You gave your opinion of what a peaceful protest is, I gave you mine.

[Wiseman]

everyone on here is... and i find it kinda humorous considering nearly none of you have experienced it here.

Well you never invite me over

[spideyboy_1111]

Well you never invite me over

lol as long as your with us, you are always invited over :)

[Tally Man]

Peacefully protesting does not involve the possibility of getting arrested.

Sidewalk protests are better than blocking streets and causing a disturbance.

I think the arresting aspect it tends to depend on what your protesting and who you are protesting against and can be independent of the peaceful part. There are many instances of people peacefully protesting during the civil rights era where a great number of them were arrested. I'd think we'd both agree that its very unlikely that people protesting against Prop 8 would get arrested for just protesting. But I'd say you'd agree with me that someone protesting a law against african americans sitting in the front of a bus by doing so peacefully had a pretty good chance of getting arrested in the civil rights era.

[spideyboy_1111]

As I said, it is different if it is a sanctioned event.



You gave your opinion of what a peaceful protest is, I gave you mine.

nearly all have been sanctioned, and if not at first, the police quickly jump into action and pretty much turn it into a sanctioned one. There's been no rioting, and very little arrests and injury. I consider any protest that doesn't have those calm and peaceful.

[Marx]

I think the arresting aspect it tends to depend on what your protesting and who you are protesting against and can be independent of the peaceful part. There are many instances of people peacefully protesting during the civil rights era where a great number of them were arrested. I'd think we'd both agree that its very unlikely that people protesting against Prop 8 would get arrested for just protesting. But I'd say you'd agree with me that someone protesting a law against african americans sitting in the front of a bus by doing so peacefully had a pretty good chance of getting arrested in the civil rights era.

That's true Tally.

[spideyboy_1111]

Peacefully protesting does not involve the possibility of getting arrested.

Sidewalk protests are better than blocking streets and causing a disturbance.

there's been very little arrests. And the only ones i know about... deserved it. They hopped on a police car!

Tell that to MLK, Harvey Milk, Rosa Parks, . They all would have highly disagreed with you on that.

[Marx]

nearly all have been sanctioned, and if not at first, the police quickly jump into action and pretty much turn it into a sanctioned one. There's been no rioting, and very little arrests and injury. I consider any protest that doesn't have those calm and peaceful.

That's an entirely different story then. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

there's been very little arrests. And the only ones i know about... deserved it. They hopped on a police car!

Tell that to MLK. He would have highly disagreed with you on that.

Sigh...

I should have said in the eyes of the law it is better to protest on a sidewalk than to sit in the middle of the street.

[spideyboy_1111]

That's an entirely different story then. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
indeed, the police have been amazing in LA, very very supportive. And they should be, not to give into a stereotype, but there are alot of female police officers who are lesbians... least in LA. And cops really do look out for there own.

[Tally Man]

That's true Tally.

I think it can come down to what people think is peaceful as well. Some people might very well consider a blocking of a public transport station like what is happening in Georgia peaceful if there is no violence. But if you consider peaceful to mean no interference with what is considered the daily sort of life such as lacking a disturbance of the peace it might be different.

In the end I tend to side with the side dealing more along the lines of non-violence as dealing with the peaceful aspect. Because the civil rights protesters definitely wanted to make an impact on the status quo which would cause disturbances of the peace, but they wanted to do so in a way which did not involve violence. People would sit at lunch counters doing non-violent protests with the definate intention to make people think about what they were doing and break them out of their state of mind.

[spideyboy_1111]

Sigh...

I should have said in the eyes of the law it is better to protest on a sidewalk than to sit in the middle of the street.

indeed, but in the eyes of California law, right now... i'm a 2nd class citizen! yay!!!!! :(

[spideyboy_1111]

I think it can come down to what people think is peaceful as well. Some people might very well consider a blocking of a public transport station like what is happening in Georgia peaceful if there is no violence. But if you consider peaceful to mean no interference with what is considered the daily sort of life such as lacking a disturbance of the peace it might be different.

In the end I tend to side with the side dealing more along the lines of non-violence as dealing with the peaceful aspect. Because the civil rights protesters definitely wanted to make an impact on the status quo which would cause disturbances of the peace, but they wanted to do so in a way which did not involve violence. People would sit at lunch counters doing non-violent protests with the definate intention to make people think about what they were doing and break them out of their state of mind.

:up: indeed. Plus I personally think its much more empowering to see a couple thousand or more people walk by fighting for what they believe in, then a bunch of people on a street corner spread out. As humans we tend to be very visual, and a good protest can really show strength in numbers.

[Marx]

:up: indeed. Plus I personally think its much more empowering to see a couple thousand or more people walk by fighting for what they believe in, then a bunch of people on a street corner spread out. As humans we tend to be very visual, and a good protest can really show strength in numbers.

If it's a peaceful walk, that's good. I could definitely go for that.

[Tally Man]

:up: indeed. Plus I personally think its much more empowering to see a couple thousand or more people walk by fighting for what they believe in, then a bunch of people on a street corner spread out. As humans we tend to be very visual, and a good protest can really show strength in numbers.

Definitely. The main point of civil rights protests wasn't just to challenge the laws in the South, it was also to shock the North about what was happening and break the misconception of whites that all blacks were happy with the way things were. Breaking people out of their comfort zone while doing it in a way which doesn't involve physical violence is very important for that sort of thing.

[spideyboy_1111]

If it's a peaceful walk, that's good. I could definitely go for that.

thats really all they've been. sure in some traffic might get blocked up, but honestly people are so use to that here its not that big of a deal. And if traffic backing up is the least of our worries, i consider that pretty damn good :)

[spideyboy_1111]

Definitely. The main point of civil rights protests wasn't just to challenge the laws in the South, it was also to shock the North about what was happening and break the misconception of whites that all blacks were happy with the way things were. Breaking people out of their comfort zone while doing it in a way which doesn't involve physical violence is very important for that sort of thing.

exactly. It's also showing action to the rest of the country. This is spawned and influenced many other protests in other states. If we lit candles and sat around on the side walk, it'd get much less coverage, and far less attention.

[Paradoxium]

Marriage has nothing to do with children... you can have children without marriage. I hate this damn assumption. If anything, marriage means family. Family is what you make it, whether it's just you and your husband/wife or the addition of kids. Family is what you make it. There's no concrete definition to this. Marriage is about love, and making a union between 2 people who hope to spend the rest of there lives together.This was a convo with Carcharodon within a bigger context.

I am talking about the common denominator of monogamous relationship to produce (adoption does not count) and raise a child, and using this common denominator as the definition of marriage. It even excludes any legal contract of sorts. Nothing beyond that. So under my induction, it is possible to have a marriage without love. It is not a necessary condition, but can certainly overlap. Hence it is reduced out. Proof that this is possible is in arranged marriages, on top of which, the lower statistical rates of divorce within these arranged and loveless marriages. I am reducing it to make a more pure and concrete definition.

Your addition of emotion is unnecessary and only serves to dilute it; since it is possible to love someone without being in a marriage. By diluting the definition with these additions - of course it becomes a case of "how you make it".

This is of course immaterial since I pretty much admit I am for gay marriage. We were discussing the slippery slope fallacy, and it lead to all this. It is a way to discern and check internal logic on a theoretical basis.

[spideyboy_1111]

This was a convo with Carcharodon within a bigger context.

I am talking about the common denominator of monogamous relationship to produce (adoption does not count) and raise a child, and using this common denominator as the definition of marriage. It even excludes any legal contract of sorts. Nothing beyond that. So under my induction, it is possible to have a marriage without love. It is not a necessary condition, but can certainly overlap. Hence it is reduced out. Proof that this is possible is in arranged marriages, on top of which, the lower statistical rates of divorce within this arranged and loveless marriages. I am reducing it to make it to a more pure and concrete definition.

Your addition of emotion is unnecessary and only serves to dilute it; since it is possible to love someone without being in a marriage. By diluting the definition with these additions - of course it becomes a case of "how you make it".

This is of course immaterial since I pretty much admit I am for gay marriage. We were discussing the slippery slope fallacy, and it lead to all this. It is a way to discern and check internal logic in a theoretical basis.

no it is not. If that were the case people would divorce after they produce, and remarry to produce again. Marriage on a fundamentally ideal basis is a union of love. It's been portrayed that way for a very long time. Cinderella didn't marry Prince Charming to run off and make babies.

[Paradoxium]

no it is not. If that were the case people would divorce after they produce, and remarry to produce again. Marriage on a fundamentally ideal basis is a union of love. It's been portrayed that way for a very long time. Cinderella didn't marry Prince Charming to run off and make babies.We are talking in normative terms man.

Marriage is not necessarily about love.

[Paradoxium]

Well at least not the love and romanticism of Rousseau.

[spideyboy_1111]

We are talking in normative terms man.

Marriage is not necessarily about love.

You seem to be just as confused as your icon... you rarely ever hear anyone say "i wanna get married so i can have babies someday!" They get married to "spend the rest of there lives with someone" or hope to at the time.

[wiegeabo]

This was a convo with Carcharodon within a bigger context.

I am talking about the common denominator of monogamous relationship to produce (adoption does not count) and raise a child, and using this common denominator as the definition of marriage.

I believe there is a flaw in your premise. It sounds like you are saying that the most fundamental definition of marriage is to produce and raise a child (since you are equating the definition of marriage to that part of a monogamous relationship).

I would argue that marriage is completely unnecessary in the production and raising of a child. All that is needed is for a couple to agree to have a child, and then bring it up. They don't have to love each other, nor do they (technically) even need to be together to raise it. Procreation is completely separate from marriage, otherwise couples who didn't want kids wouldn't get married. (Notice how we require a license for marriage, but not one for having children. Because marriage is obviously not required.)

Marriage is a social and legal contract. Legally (according to the State), it specifies the rights each partner gets in relation to the other partner and their dependents, as well as to the ownership of their property. Socially (whether religious or secular), it's a binding of two people together in an expression of their love and commitment to one another. And those contracts are what is being denied homosexual couples.

[moraldeficiency]

you're very quick to jump. I get that your with us and fighting for our rights, but you seem to have a tone of judgment whenever you criticize something like this. You give of an impression that protests are full of crazies or that we have people walking around as if it's a gay pride parade. There's been very very little of that. It's a tiny tiny tiny minority, so much of one that i don't even see them when watching the local news. Maybe my tolerancy is higher then yours, don't know, don't care. But I'm a firm believer in letting people be themselves. And i don't believe in forcing someone to tone down who they are. Thats a huge factor about being gay. Yes some go overboard... but just ignore them and let them be what makes them feel comfortable.

Yeah, cause most protests end up being jokes that backfire and make you look ridiculous (see teabagging for more on this).

I give the correct impression that the news reporters don't interview the rational people involved, they interview the psycho chanting things, wearing odd clothes, saying nonsense and making you all look bad. Sorry but that's what happens.

You guys are blocking traffic, that's a bit crazy in itself. Nothing like pissing people off to rally them to your cause, eh?

Nah, I'm more tolerancish, and better looking and much much more modest.

I don't believe in human traffic bumps. No offense, and I support your cause, but if you're in the middle of the street and trying to make me stop and disrupt my life for a cause I support then I will hit you and tell you what I think of the dickish move as you roll off my bumper. Did it with the cubans and I agreed with them, you'd be no different.

I'd love to ignore that group, but again, hard to do when you're standing in the middle of the street forcing people to be late.

This doesn't apply to anything that was actually sanctioned and approved just the ones where people expected to do whatever the hell they wanted.



And please don't compare this to what MLK did, that was well organized and wasn't based around antagonism, it was based on decency and siting out unfair practices (which is what I'm saying you guys should be doing). This type of thing could very well backfire and have the effect of getting straight people that support you to be too pissed off to want to help. You're smart, you must see some truth in that.

[Carcharodon]

I'm sorry, I was having trouble following your logic:cmad:

:oldrazz:

[Carcharodon]

I believe there is a flaw in your premise. It sounds like you are saying that the most fundamental definition of marriage is to produce and raise a child (since you are equating the definition of marriage to that part of a monogamous relationship).

I would argue that marriage is completely unnecessary in the production and raising of a child. All that is needed is for a couple to agree to have a child, and then bring it up. They don't have to love each other, nor do they (technically) even need to be together to raise it. Procreation is completely separate from marriage, otherwise couples who didn't want kids wouldn't get married. (Notice how we require a license for marriage, but not one for having children. Because marriage is obviously not required.)

Marriage is a social and legal contract. Legally (according to the State), it specifies the rights each partner gets in relation to the other partner and their dependents, as well as to the ownership of their property. Socially (whether religious or secular), it's a binding of two people together in an expression of their love and commitment to one another. And those contracts are what is being denied homosexual couples.Hey, Paradoxium: why does this all sound familiar? :funny:

[Paradoxium]

You seem to be just as confused as your icon... you rarely ever hear anyone say "i wanna get married so i can have babies someday!" They get married to "spend the rest of there lives with someone" or hope to at the time.
You are reusing emotional arguments not a logical one, is just like the social conservatives who rely on a religious argument you guys whine about. I have logically reduced it to its most bare and unique combined utility (in normative terms), void of any emotion and legal arguments.

As I cited before already and probably will again after you reply this post, you can retain the company of the lover without needing to marry. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that. And is also possible to have a loveless marriage and produce the same utility (arrange marriages). This is why it was reduced out of the equation.

[Paradoxium]

Hey, Paradoxium: why does this all sound familiar? :funny:*sighs* it's not worth it, since it is pretty clear he didn't even bother to read what came before it.

[moraldeficiency]

You are reusing emotional arguments not a normative one, is just like the social conservatives who rely on a religious argument you guys whine about. I have logically reduced it to its most bare and unique combined utility (in normative terms), void of any emotion and legal arguments.

As I cited before already and probably will again after you reply this post, you can retain the company of the lover without needing to marry. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that. And is also possible to have a loveless marriage and produce the same utility (arrange marriages). This is why it was reduced out of the equation.

Actually that's not true, marriage also binds you with legal issues. Your partner now can make decissions in your absence/sickness that they couldn't before. Married people also have unique legal benefits that you can only get with lawyers or doctors. Not to mention tax status and other protections.

For purposes of the gov. those issues are the only things making marriage unique as knocking people up can certianly be done outside of wedlock.

So babies aren't unique to marriage, neither is the love and wish to be with someone forevah. Neither arguement should or does matter and certianly not as reasons to legalize gay marriage. It's the unique status given to married people that makes them different from couples in the eyes of the state and that's all that matters. You cannot give exclusive privaledges to one group of people, that's not treating people equally and that right there is why gay marriage should be legal.

[Paradoxium]

Actually that's not true, marriage also binds you with legal issues. Your partner now can make decissions in your absence/sickness that they couldn't before. Married people also have unique legal benefits that you can only get with lawyers or doctors. Not to mention tax status and other protections.

For purposes of the gov. those issues are the only things making marriage unique as knocking people up can certianly be done outside of wedlock.

So babies aren't unique to marriage, neither is the love and wish to be with someone forevah. Neither arguement should or does matter and certianly not as reasons to legalize gay marriage. It's the unique status given to married people that makes them different from couples in the eyes of the state and that's all that matters. You cannot give exclusive privaledges to one group of people, that's not treating people equally and that right there is why gay marriage should be legal.You are making the same mistake/assumption as wiegeabo is making. I cited earlier something about this issue and it goes marriage is NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT. Like friendships you cannot "legalize" or hand out "licenses" of friendships. I am keeping it at its most logical and purest intent/utility.

And I have cited in the past many times, the government has no business handing out "marriage licenses". And YES, I am talking about straight couples as well. In the situation of protecting spouses, that is a completely different matter that can be separated from marriage.

[wiegeabo]

*sighs* it's not worth it, since it is pretty clear he didn't even bother to read what came before it.

Wow, hell of a wrong assumption there.

I've read your posts, and besides being confusing, I believe your inductive argument as based on a false premise, thereby putting your conclusion in doubt.

And that's beside the point that all inductive arguments are, by their very nature, fallacious. Now, if you can give me a nice deductive argument...

[Paradoxium]

Wow, hell of a wrong assumption there.

I've read your posts, and besides being confusing, I believe your inductive argument as based on a false premise, thereby putting your conclusion in doubt.

And that's beside the point that all inductive arguments are, by their very nature, fallacious. Now, if you can give me a nice deductive argument...How exactly does a atavistic and/or stateless society deal with the legal nature and rights of a marriage contract? Forget straight or gay. Why isn't this inclusive to friendships?

[moraldeficiency]

You are making the same mistake/assumption as wiegeabo is making. I cited earlier something about this issue and it goes marriage is NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT. Like friendships you cannot "legalize" or hand out "licenses" of friendships. I am keeping it at its most logical and purest intent/utility.

And I have cited in the past many times, the government has no business handing out "marriage licenses". And YES, I am talking about straight couples as well. In the situation of protecting spouses, that is a completely different matter that can be separated from marriage.

No, but being married is a legal status that affords differences no one else can have. That's what you're missing here. You're assuming a lot with the utility argument and that doesn't always fly especially not for older people or those with reproductive issues. You make a decent argument but ultimately it can hold no weight in the government's eyes anymore than love does, they're nonissues. The gov cares what your status is. What you check off in that tax box, what legal rights you have, what legal rights you have over or in conjunction with others. Utility rarely factors into any decission. To the gov. you are basically your social security number and your status and marriage fundamentally changes that status. People might like to think they're more, but not really and certianly not in terms of the US govs relationship to you.

Now you can say they have no buisness doing it, but that's not gonna change, so if you have something which isn't going anywhere you have to make it available to everyone. That's equality and that's the issue.

[wiegeabo]

You are making the same mistake/assumption as wiegeabo is making. I cited earlier something about this issue and it goes marriage is NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT. Like friendships you cannot "legalize" or hand out "licenses" of friendships. I am keeping it at its most logical and purest intent/utility.

And I have cited in the past many times, the government has no business handing out "marriage licenses". And YES, I am talking about straight couples as well. In the situation of protecting spouses, that is a completely different matter that can be separated from marriage.

That is the flaw in your premise!

Marriage is a legal contract. Pretty much always has been. There's absolutely no reason to marry someone except to get the legal rights granted to spouses. Any couple can have everything a married couple can have except those particular rights granted to married couples by the State.

Now, marriage is also a declaration of two people wanting to spend their lives together. But there's no reason to have a 'marriage' to do that. Any couple could do that in a ceremony of some kind and it would still mean the same thing. Humans were doing this sort of thing long before marriage came along as a legal institution.

But it's the legal benefits that homosexual couples are fighting for. They can already have everything married straight couples can have, except for those legal benefits (and the ability to actually call themselves married, and be socially equal as well as legally equal).

[BlackLantern]

But it's the legal benefits that homosexual couples are fighting for. They can already have everything married straight couples can have, except for those legal benefits (and the ability to actually call themselves married, and be socially equal as well as legally equal).

Hospital visits, transfer of property, insurance, all that stuff

[wiegeabo]

How exactly does a atavistic and/or stateless society deal with the legal nature and rights of a marriage contract? Forget straight or gay. Why isn't this inclusive to friendships?

Well, since we're not dealing with a stateless society, it doesn't apply here.


But, in a more general sense, every society creates their own norms and mores. And this includes the way people interact from friendship to 'marriage' (for lack of a more general term). They create the rules of how people get together, and what happens when they break apart. Every society from large (the US government), to small (tribes) do this. The rules can obviously be, and are, different between societies, but are followed within a society.

Quick example of this when looking at the legal rights conferred to married persons: community property.

Every state in the US that used to be Mexican property (like California), are required by law to have community property marriages. (It's part of the treaty we signed with Mexico to acquire those lands, and other states also do this.) Which means, if you get married in California without a prenup, you automatically own half of everything your spouse owns, and vice versa. In non-community property states, that doesn't necessarily happen.

[Paradoxium]

Carcharodon and I were discussing the slippery slope fallacy and the definition of the word; gay marriage as a slippery slope of marriage. It is ironic because wiegeabo made the slippery slope argument against incest/polygamy to gay marriage. That's how it got to this.

This is why I said I am for gay marriage but simultaneously trying to reconcile the fallacy issue. I never said I was against the legal stuff. That is an entirely different matter.

[Paradoxium]

Well, since we're not dealing with a stateless society, it doesn't apply here.


But, in a more general sense, every society creates their own norms and mores. And this includes the way people interact from friendship to 'marriage' (for lack of a more general term). They create the rules of how people get together, and what happens when they break apart. Every society from large (the US government), to small (tribes) do this. The rules can obviously be, and are, different between societies, but are followed within a society.

Quick example of this when looking at the legal rights conferred to married persons: community property.

Every state in the US that used to be Mexican property (like California), are required by law to have community property marriages. (It's part of the treaty we signed with Mexico to acquire those lands, and other states also do this.) Which means, if you get married in California without a prenup, you automatically own half of everything your spouse owns, and vice versa. In non-community property states, that doesn't necessarily happen.You can't just say it "doesn't apply here". This is why I am reducing it to the most simply and purest characteristics to give a universal meaning. You do not need to legally declare you will love and live with someone. Such as you do not need to legally declare your friendship with someone. It is silly.

What of a stateless couple, who stay together for the rest of the lives and say have 4 children. They work hard, provide and nurture, and the children grow up being stable individuals. They are absolutely faithful together as well as loving. Yet they are somehow not a marriage according to your definition, because they did not declare legally?

Yet a drunk sterile clown who accidentally gets into a shotgun marriage with a retired stripper in Vegas is more of a marriage than the former example because they legally declare?


=================

You said earlierI would argue that marriage is completely unnecessary in the production and raising of a child. All that is needed is for a couple to agree to have a child, and then bring it up. They don't have to love each other, nor do they (technically) even need to be together to raise it. Procreation is completely separate from marriage, otherwise couples who didn't want kids wouldn't get married. (Notice how we require a license for marriage, but not one for having children. Because marriage is obviously not required.)You have not added or debunked anything, I said it is possible to have a loveless marriage to serve the same utility. The moment they leave out the procreation + raising bit, is no longer a marriage. There is absolutely nothing to prove single parents is a sustainable structure given the empirical evidence against it. I have already cited this before.

[wiegeabo]

You can't just say it "doesn't count here". This is why I am reducing it to the most simply and purest characteristics. You do not need to legally declare you will love and live with someone. Such as you do not need to legally declare your friendship with someone. It is silly.

What of a stateless couple, who stay together for the rest of the lives and say have 4 children. They work hard, provide and nurture, and the children grow up being stable individuals. They are absolutely faithful together as well as loving. Yet they are somehow not a marriage according to your definition, because they did not declare legally?

Yet a drunk sterile clown who accidentally gets into a shotgun marriage with a retired stripper in Vegas is more of a marriage than the former example because they legally declare?

Yes. That is exactly how it legally works. Does it seem fair? Not really. But that's the law.

You keep trying to define marriage as some abstract concept that two people have by just being together. But that's not it. Marriage is a legal construct as well as a social one.

Anyone, like the couple in your example, can have a 'social' marriage. But unless they have a legal one, it won't be recognized by the State. Some areas try to help with this be using Common Law marriages, but those aren't nearly as binding as actual marriages.


=================

You have not added or debunked anything, I said it is possible to have a loveless marriage to serve the same utility. The moment they leave out the procreation + raising bit, is no longer a marriage.

Yes. It is a marriage. It's not a relationship, or at least not a loving relationship, but it still is a legal marriage.


It sounds like you're trying to separate marriage from it's 'civil union' legal aspects. But really, if you do so, then there's no point in having marriages.

[Paradoxium]

Yes. That is exactly how it legally works. Does it seem fair? Not really. But that's the law.

You keep trying to define marriage as some abstract concept that two people have by just being together. But that's not it. Marriage is a legal construct as well as a social one.

Anyone, like the couple in your example, can have a 'social' marriage. But unless they have a legal one, it won't be recognized by the State. Some areas try to help with this be using Common Law marriages, but those aren't nearly as binding as actual marriages.


=================



Yes. It is a marriage. It's not a relationship, or at least not a loving relationship, but it still is a legal marriage.


It sounds like you're trying to separate marriage from it's 'civil union' legal aspects. But really, if you do so, then there's no point in having marriages.If you keep it as a modern legal construct as you appear to describe it, then you are violating the very accusation you made; the slippery slope fallacy. It opens the precedence for illegal forms of relationships as marriage (aka incest). Unless you support incest and polygamy, then I understand. You cannot have it both ways and make this same accusation towards incest and polygamy.

But for me, in a practical sense. The government has no business sanctioning marriages period. I also don't think they should be giving any tax benefit to either of them. The only thing I am fine with is, rights like hospital visitation and so forth. I would fight to support that.

But it would seem to me gays and straights are trying to impose a convenient definition on people, and give tax/monetary benefits to themselves. You are gaming the system to your own benefit. This is incredibly selfish.

And you are wrong, the substance of the relationship is more important than a stupid title and declaration.

[BlackLantern]

but society tells us that "marriage" is what we should be striving for to make us complete

[Wiseman]

but society tells us that "marriage" is what we should be striving for to make us complete

Really, cause society has taught me that marriage just destroys perfectly good relationships and causes half your crap to go away, along with most of your money

[BlackLantern]

Really, cause society has taught me that marriage just destroys perfectly good relationships and causes half your crap to go away, along with most of your money

or marriage gets you a stepfather who beats you and your mom and makes your childhood a living hell

[Wiseman]

or marriage gets you a stepfather who beats you and your mom and makes your childhood a living hell

yep, that too. You know all this talk about how great marriage is makes me want to find someone to make me feel worthless for the rest of my life

[moraldeficiency]

Wow, you guys are some cynical bastards. (and this is me saying this)

[Wiseman]

I blame my last girlfriend

[Paradoxium]

Well like I said, substance is important. This is why I said it is more of a privilege, not really a right, because not many people can handle it. Most people, straight or gay, seem to be marrying for the wrong reasons, they have these excessive expectations of how it will make themselves more happy. They are so wrong and completely miss the damn point.

[BlackLantern]

Wow, you guys are some cynical bastards. (and this is me saying this)

well when said stepfather pins you against a wall at 10 yrs old and tells you point blank that he simply tolerates your existence for your moms sake and is going to make you miserable every day....it tends to affect you

[wiegeabo]

If you keep it as a modern legal construct as you appear to describe it, then you are violating the very accusation you made; the slippery slope fallacy. It opens the precedence for illegal forms of relationships as marriage (aka incest). Unless you support incest and polygamy, then I understand. You cannot have it both ways and make this same accusation towards incest and polygamy.

But for me, in a practical sense. The government has no business sanctioning marriages period. I also don't think they should be giving any tax benefit to either of them. The only thing I am fine with is, rights like hospital visitation and so forth. I would fight to support that.

But it would seem to me gays and straights are trying to impose a convenient definition on people, and give tax/monetary benefits to themselves. You are gaming the system to your own benefit. This is incredibly selfish.

And you are wrong, the substance of the relationship is more important than a stupid title and declaration.


The slippery slope fallacy is when one step is perceived to absolutely be necessarily followed by the next step when that isn't true. Now, if we assume the argument that allowing gay marriage must allow the other types of marriage is true, then what the users of the argument fail to realize is that having marriage of any form in the first place necessarily leads to those other types. So it's not gay marriage that leads to polygamy or incestuous marriage, it is marriage that leads to gay and polygamous and incestuous marriage. So they have three choices: follow the logic of their argument and allow all those types of marriage, follow the logic of their argument and stop allowing marriage all together (to avoid those other types of marriage), or stop using the argument against gay marriage.


If the government grants rights to married couples, then it must be sanctioning marriages. Otherwise it would ignore them and not automatically grant those rights.


I never said the substance of a relationship is less important than a title and declaration. I said legally it is. Any couple can have a relationship and build a life together. And if they want some kind of commitment ceremony, they can do that too. Plenty of straight and gay couples have done so. But without an official 'marriage' the government won't recognize it or grant them legal married rights (I'm putting aside domestic partnership laws for the moment). That's one of the arguments for gay marriage. Why is it ok for two straight people who just met in Vegas to get married, but not a gay couple who have been together for decades? Hell, a gay man and gay woman can legally get married because they're of the opposite sex. Somehow the opponents of gay marriage forget these little details when they talk about preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage.


It seems like you're equating a life-long relationship to marriage, and that's not what it is. People have been bonding in monogamous relationships and building families long before marriage came around. You can call such a relationship a marriage if you like, but legally it has no standing unless there is an official, government sanctioned marriage.

[moraldeficiency]

I just call that good parenting, establish dominance early or the little ****ers run all over you. (I kid) That **** wouldn't have flown in my family though, my brothers and I were maniacs, god help that man when he feel asleep.

[BlackLantern]

I just call that good parenting, establish dominance early or the little ****ers run all over you. (I kid) That **** wouldn't have flown in my family though, my brothers and I were maniacs, god help that man when he feel asleep.

I was an only child that liked to read....the only issue was that I would stay up late reading and went through lightbulbs and flashlight batteries like crazy....you know he once took batteries out of my flashlight, put them in a sock, and whacked me in the stomach a couple times??

[moraldeficiency]

I was an only child that liked to read....the only issue was that I would stay up late reading and went through lightbulbs and flashlight batteries like crazy....you know he once took batteries out of my flashlight, put them in a sock, and whacked me in the stomach a couple times??

Meethinks you should have read up on poisons...

[Marx]

I was an only child that liked to read....the only issue was that I would stay up late reading and went through lightbulbs and flashlight batteries like crazy....you know he once took batteries out of my flashlight, put them in a sock, and whacked me in the stomach a couple times??

Are you serious? That is horrible!

[BlackLantern]

Are you serious? That is horrible!

being that young, I wondered...is this how you act when you marry someone??

[Marx]

GAY MAN BEATEN AT WARREN COUNTY BAR
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Homosexual-Man-Beaten-At-Warren-County-Bar/Qxra6Fh-UkWiev3AusopUg.cspx

Warren County Sheriff's deputies are investigating a disturbing attack that left a young man bloodied, his nose shattered. Investigators want to know if it is a hate crime. The victim is gay.

The assault happened at a Maineville Bar. Local 12 reporter Shawn Ley shows us why this investigation is far from over.

Ronnie Robertson's nose is broken, he has deep cuts and scratches around his eyes and cheeks. The 31 year old Mainville man is openly gay, his friends saying he's regretting not going to a gay bar Tuesday night.

Victim's friend: "The guy that was assaulted had said, that's the reason they made gay bars because it's a safer place, a safer environment to hang out."

The Warren County Sheriff's Office says Robertson received these injuries at Tabby's American Bar and Grill on Montgomery Road in Mainville, and a criminal investigation is underway, looking for everyone involved in the attack. Two women were arrested on the spot: Sarah Goldsberry, and Tammy Lingle. They are charged with felony assault, and disrupting police business.

Robertson's sister says there was no bar fight. She says her brother was attacked because of his sexual orientation.

Kelly Coffey/Victim's Sister: "I believe it was a hate crime, completely. because that's the only thing targeted that night, when someone stepped up and said, yes, I'm gay ... all night it was provoked, all night it was asked and I believe that's what it was."

Kelly Coffey says her friends, a mix of gay and straight people chose Tabby's to play sand volleyball - but were harassed by a man who continued to ask who in the group was gay and who wasn't & her brother finally answered. "When he admitted that he was, they lost it, went crazy and started attacking my brother and pushing him out of the bar."

So what does Tabby's owner have to say? We stopped in and was told no manager was there. We called 5 times Thursday night and still couldn't reach the owner. We do know the sheriff's office is going over the security camera tape to look at what happened and for the two other men involved.

Ohio's hate crime laws do *not* include gays and lesbians as a protected class. The Warren County Sheriff's Office says the gay bashing element of the case is "in play." Other cases in Ohio have fit the statute for charges of "ethnic intimidation."

This bar isn't all the far from me. I think I've been there before. This is just incredibly sad, and ridiculous. People can be so ignorant...

[Paradoxium]

The slippery slope fallacy is when one step is perceived to absolutely be necessarily followed by the next step when that isn't true. Now, if we assume the argument that allowing gay marriage must allow the other types of marriage is true, then what the users of the argument fail to realize is that having marriage of any form in the first place necessarily leads to those other types.

So it's not gay marriage that leads to polygamy or incestuous marriage, it is marriage that leads to gay and polygamous and incestuous marriage. So they have three choices: follow the logic of their argument and allow all those types of marriage, follow the logic of their argument and stop allowing marriage all together (to avoid those other types of marriage), or stop using the argument against gay marriage.P = Straight Marriage
Q = Gay Marriage
R = subsequent possibilities (Incest for simplicity sake)

What they say - that is, gay marriage as a slippery slope to incest. (you say: "Now, if we assume the argument that allowing gay marriage must allow the other types of marriage is true")

If Q, then R
Q (assume slippery slope is true)
Therefore
R (modus ponens)

The notion of slippery slope means the statement is false. It is not necessarily true it will make R a possibility.

If Q, then R (original preposition)
not-R (for it is a slippery slope)
Therefore,
not-Q (modus tollens)

Q does not necessarily lead to R. As modus tollens it is: "the way that denies by denying" - it is logically valid. So there you go, you have your "don't use this against gay marriage" argument.

So it is reshaped to (you say: then what the users of the argument fail to realize is that "having marriage of any form in the first place necessarily leads to those other types.")

P is a form of a marriage. So it leads than to this:

If P then (Q and R)

Since we agree that Q = not-R, because I recognize that as a slippery slope. And that is a fallacy. We make sure it is bullet proof.

Q or R (because it is not a slippery slope, it become a disjunct not a conjunct)
Q
Therefore,
Q

Q or R
not-R
Therefore,
Q

I use Q

So the proposition becomes, if straight marriage, then it leads to gay marriage. We need not worry subsequent slippery slopes since we eliminated those.

If P, then Q (proposition that straight leads to gay marriage)
not-Q (as a slippery slope proven it is false)
Therefore,
not-P (modus tollens)

Meaning

P =/= Q

Straight marriage is not gay marriage.

It is impossible to have "If P, then (Q or R)" or "If P, then (Q and R)" by virtue of this.

What this means is I either accept that all forms of "legally redefined" marriage are invalid to be utterly bullet proof (which is the case anyways), or straight marriage is what it is, and gay marriage cannot happen because it would otherwise be a form of a slippery slope argument.

So while it is true you can try to argue gay marriage without worrying about subsequent slippery slopes, it doesn't change the fact it is a slippery slope in of itself.

BlackLantern is totally going to burn me for this post :o

[BlackLantern]

I hate math....you know I hate math, Dox....

[Paradoxium]

Well it is not technically math per say. Although I was going to show the permutations of of a polygamous society as being less beneficial than monogamous one in terms of genetic diversity.

[Wiseman]

What the hell was that. I didn't come in here for equations and symbols. I feel violated, so violated

[Paradoxium]

Dude its not as bad as it looks, it is basic logical syllogism to prove a point. It's easier and faster than typing it all in words :o

[mclay18]

I'm for gay rights, but this story just has me all sorts of confused:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_us/us_male_prom_queen

I can understand if the guy has a drag persona but if he doesn't... why apply for prom queen?

[Marx]

I'm for gay rights, but this story just has me all sorts of confused:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_re_us/us_male_prom_queen

I can understand if the guy has a drag persona but if he doesn't... why apply for prom queen?

I don't understand that all. If he was in drag, I could see it...but he isn't, so I don't.

[Paradoxium]

Just cause he is gay, it doesn't mean he is incapable of being a attention whore :o

[Marx]

Just cause he is gay, it doesn't mean he is incapable of being a attention whore :o

Alot of flaming gays are attention whores.

[Schlosser85]

Alot of flaming gays are attention whores.


*cough*PerezHilton*cough*

[Darth Rockwell]

See I don't understand it. As a bi-male I don't understand why people do this. I mean I know being gay sometimes can lead you to acting more feminin and such but that doesn't you need to be Prom Queen. Unless you are a man who dress and wants to be treated as a woman, well that is differnt. As a gay you are able to be prom king. It does the same thing.

[Gilpesh]

*cough*PerezHilton*cough*
You know... I may be pro-gay marriage and them being treated like everyone else and having all the same rights..... but Perez Hilton makes me want to beat a gay man to death.

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah, cause most protests end up being jokes that backfire and make you look ridiculous (see teabagging for more on this).

I give the correct impression that the news reporters don't interview the rational people involved, they interview the psycho chanting things, wearing odd clothes, saying nonsense and making you all look bad. Sorry but that's what happens.

You guys are blocking traffic, that's a bit crazy in itself. Nothing like pissing people off to rally them to your cause, eh?

Nah, I'm more tolerancish, and better looking and much much more modest.

I don't believe in human traffic bumps. No offense, and I support your cause, but if you're in the middle of the street and trying to make me stop and disrupt my life for a cause I support then I will hit you and tell you what I think of the dickish move as you roll off my bumper. Did it with the cubans and I agreed with them, you'd be no different.

I'd love to ignore that group, but again, hard to do when you're standing in the middle of the street forcing people to be late.

This doesn't apply to anything that was actually sanctioned and approved just the ones where people expected to do whatever the hell they wanted.



And please don't compare this to what MLK did, that was well organized and wasn't based around antagonism, it was based on decency and siting out unfair practices (which is what I'm saying you guys should be doing). This type of thing could very well backfire and have the effect of getting straight people that support you to be too pissed off to want to help. You're smart, you must see some truth in that.

? none of our protests have backfired on us.. stop acting like they are. I'm not quite sure what world you live in. I honestly don't even no why you support us because you make it pretty damn clear you don't support what were doing. The tea-bagging protest was indeed ridiculous, and not even on the same side as us... so your point is very moot.

As i've clearly said before, the very few of these protests have been unorganized, and most have been sanctioned by the city. You're opinion on this means nothing to me now, because you obviously haven't understood much about what i've said.

This topic was covered and understood last night. Too bad you missed it. I'm moving on.

[spideyboy_1111]

You are reusing emotional arguments not a logical one, is just like the social conservatives who rely on a religious argument you guys whine about. I have logically reduced it to its most bare and unique combined utility (in normative terms), void of any emotion and legal arguments.

As I cited before already and probably will again after you reply this post, you can retain the company of the lover without needing to marry. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that. And is also possible to have a loveless marriage and produce the same utility (arrange marriages). This is why it was reduced out of the equation.

no, what i'm saying is there is absolutely no logic behind what you're saying, and many people including myself have given you examples which prove that.

[spideyboy_1111]

GAY MAN BEATEN AT WARREN COUNTY BAR
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story/Homosexual-Man-Beaten-At-Warren-County-Bar/Qxra6Fh-UkWiev3AusopUg.cspx



This bar isn't all the far from me. I think I've been there before. This is just incredibly sad, and ridiculous. People can be so ignorant...

god dammit Ohio :(. One of the reasons i don't wanna move back... I might be a 2nd class citizen in california, but least im in a city where its more accepting :(. damn hicks

[Kelly]

? none of our protests have backfired on us.. stop acting like they are. I'm not quite sure what world you live in. I honestly don't even no why you support us because you make it pretty damn clear you don't support what were doing. The tea-bagging protest was indeed ridiculous, and not even on the same side as us... so your point is very moot.

As i've clearly said before, the very few of these protests have been unorganized, and most have been sanctioned by the city. You're opinion on this means nothing to me now, because you obviously haven't understood much about what i've said.

This topic was covered and understood last night. Too bad you missed it. I'm moving on.

Chill out, it is a difference of opinion....that is allowed here.

[spideyboy_1111]

Just cause he is gay, it doesn't mean he is incapable of being a attention whore :o

actually from what i've read on the story, He actually wasn't being one. Majority of his class thought that was exactly what he was doing until he gave his speech. I just think it's sad people are even creating a controversy over it. Majority of his class was fine with it. That's really all that matters.

[spideyboy_1111]

See I don't understand it. As a bi-male I don't understand why people do this. I mean I know being gay sometimes can lead you to acting more feminin and such but that doesn't you need to be Prom Queen. Unless you are a man who dress and wants to be treated as a woman, well that is differnt. As a gay you are able to be prom king. It does the same thing.

Theres more to the "gay community" then just liking the same sex... there's transvestites (who get lumped in there, but many are actually strait.. fun fact ;)) then there's transexuals (pre and post op) who feel as if there born in the wrong body... its actually pretty sad if you watch a special or something on it. And then there's just more masculine gays and more feminine gays. He feels he relates to being much more of a feminine kinda guy then a masculine one.. so feels Queen suits him better. I don't see anything wrong with it anyway. If anything what i took away with most of the story was that the next few generations are that much more tolerant :up:

[BlackLantern]

god dammit Ohio :(. One of the reasons i don't wanna move back... I might be a 2nd class citizen in california, but least im in a city where its more accepting :(. damn hicks

I just have to get something off my chest...I get where you're coming from 99 percent of the time but you keep throwing around "I'm a 2nd class citizen" like you're being oppressed daily.

You can work, just like everyone else, eat at the same restaurants, use the same public facilities....I have family that grew up in a time where they had to use a back door, eat in the back of a restaurant, and stand in the back of a bus...my great uncle had a steel plate put in his head because a cop beat him because he didn't like the way my uncle looked at him....he got beat down in a public street while people walked by and did nothing...THAT is what being a second class citizen really is....

[spideyboy_1111]

Chill out, it is a difference of opinion....that is allowed here.

ahh but he was basing his opinion on things that arn't even happening. He compared us to a protest that was indeed nationally laughed at. The only complaint i've ever heard from ours, was some dickish republican on Anderson Cooper 360 one night who said we were "rioting in the street" and Anderson just kinda laughed at him and was like... "really? i don't see any rioting going on" So I'm just telling him, if he's going to make an opinion, least back it up or compare it with a real evidence of some sort.

[spideyboy_1111]

I just have to get something off my chest...I get where you're coming from 99 percent of the time but you keep throwing around "I'm a 2nd class citizen" like you're being oppressed daily.

You can work, just like everyone else, eat at the same restaurants, use the same public facilities....I have family that grew up in a time where they had to use a back door, eat in the back of a restaurant, and stand in the back of a bus...my great uncle had a steel plate put in his head because a cop beat him because he didn't like the way my uncle looked at him....he got beat down in a public street while people walked by and did nothing...THAT is what being a second class citizen really is....

2nd class means you are not treated equal to what is "normal" in terms of law. That status remains the same. Were not playing the "we had it worse then you" game. It's ridiculous and get no one anywhere. 2nd class is 2nd class.. no matter the severity.. it means you are not treated equally.

[Kelly]

ahh but he was basing his opinion on things that arn't even happening. He compared us to a protest that was indeed nationally laughed at. The only complaint i've ever heard from ours, wwas some dickish republican on Anderson Cooper 360 one night who said we were "rioting in the street" and Anderson just kinda laughed at him and was like... "really? i don't see any rioting going on" So I'm just telling him, if he's going to make an opinion, least back it up or compare it with a real evidence of some sort.

My point was not to show I agree or disagree with his opinion, nor do I need his opinion to be proven or disproven for my point. My point was to simply say, chill on the tone, it wasn't needed to make your point.

[BlackLantern]

its been 400 years for black people and we still aren't equal....so IMO it is a matter of severity

[Kelly]

its been 400 years for black people and we still aren't equal....so IMO it is a matter of severity

You can still say the same for women in most occupations.....I agree....

[Schlosser85]

Homosexuality was generally flat-out illegal 400 years ago.

[spideyboy_1111]

Homosexuality was generally flat-out illegal 400 years ago.

indeed, i find it completely ridiculous that people even are attempting to play the "we had it worse" the hardships should unite us. Not push people away. Dwelling on the past changes nothing, look to the future and grow. We've all had it bad, gays, blacks, women, have all been treated like 2nd class citizens from one time or another or currently still are in the eyes of the law. So 2nd class is second class, that we all share. It's almost like people try to play the sympathy card ... basically saying "they have no right to be upset because we had it harder.. " and that mentality is not only ignorant, but does nothing but halt the progression of the human race imo. Pain is pain, blood is blood, sweat is sweat, murder is murder. I don't think one groups pain lessons the pain of another's, and it's utterly ridiculous to fight about.

[BlackLantern]

the hardships should unite us. Not push people away.

Ideally it should, but each group has its own battles to fight

[Kelly]

I don't necessarily mean that "women" or "blacks" or whoever had it worse than homosexuals......I simply bring up that point to shine a light on the fact that this is going to take time, and even in the two examples given, true equality has not been achieved....

[spideyboy_1111]

Ideally it should, but each group has its own battles to fight

indeed, but one group saying "things are hard" doesn't make the other groups "less as hard" the black community really needs to get it out of there heads. Especially how they completely despise the fact we consider this a "civil rights" issue.... it's as if there upset as if were trying to "steal there thunder" or something. And it's just sad. The similarities we do share should bring us together (were not sayin were =, but some things we do share), not bring us apart.

[BlackLantern]

yes...not going to happen overnight....people need to really understand that....

[BlackLantern]

indeed, but one group saying "things are hard" doesn't make the other groups "less as hard" the black community really needs to get it out of there heads. Especially how they completely despise the fact we consider this a "civil rights" issue.... it's as if there upset as if were trying to "steal there thunder" or something. And it's just sad. The similarities we do share should bring us together (were not sayin were =, but some things we do share), not bring us apart.

I would venture to say that some of the more ill-informed members of the black community would see it as "We still don't have equality, what makes the gay community so special? you can get in line and wait, just like we have been"

you're also fighting the church as well, as far as the black community is concerned

[spideyboy_1111]

yes...not going to happen overnight....people need to really understand that....

and i do, trust me. But hell, you yourself just got annoyed that I said gays are "second class" citizens, and basically said "we had it worse then you". So I'm glad you understand what i just complained about, but I think if we can get each individual to try to understand, maybe people would better?

[spideyboy_1111]

I would venture to say that some of the more ill-informed members of the black community would see it as "We still don't have equality, what makes the gay community so special? you can get in line and wait, just like we have been"

you're also fighting the church as well, as far as the black community is concerned

and i agree with all that. Problem is both sides are getting the fight for "equality in the eyes of the Law" confused with "acceptance" sure both go hand in hand, but the law can't dictate racial slurs, crooked cops, bigots, etc... In the eyes of the Law the african american community (on paper) is equal. Gays are not. And All races and orientations may never gain full "Acceptance" in the eyes of everyone else. People always fear what there not use to, or what is "different". And it's stupid.

[BlackLantern]

and i do, trust me. But hell, you yourself just got annoyed that I said gays are "second class" citizens, and basically said "we had it worse then you". So I'm glad you understand what i just complained about, but I think if we can get each individual to try to understand, maybe people would better?

Agreed...but in that is venturing outside of that "comfort zone" I was talking about...you can protest in Beverly Hills and Downtown all you want, but for the most part you are preaching to the converted....go into Compton, go into East LA....go to these areas and show the people how this is not the end of the world....you have to re-educate people who have a lifetime of ignorance or apathy towards the gay community, and you have to go to where they live

[spideyboy_1111]

Agreed...but in that is venturing outside of that "comfort zone" I was talking about...you can protest in Beverly Hills and Downtown all you want, but for the most part you are preaching to the converted....go into Compton, go into East LA....go to these areas and show the people how this is not the end of the world....you have to re-educate people who have a lifetime of ignorance or apathy towards the gay community, and you have to go to where they live

O trust me, i know many people who've wanted to do that... tomorrow is "meet in the middle" which is calling for all so cal and nor cal supporters to meet in fresno (the middle of california) for a protest. That one should be the most mixed area we've been in. And i'm starting to think the reason why might be fore public safety. Farthest East LA we've been is silverlake... which is highly gay populated (but also very diverse).

[BlackLantern]

O trust me, i know many people who've wanted to do that... tomorrow is "meet in the middle" which is calling for all so cal and nor cal supporters to meet in fresno (the middle of california) for a protest. That one should be the most mixed area we've been in. And i'm starting to think the reason why might be fore public safety. Farthest East LA we've been is silverlake... which is highly gay populated (but also very diverse).

so why not?? Any struggle for equality comes at with blood, sweat, and sacrifice....you want equality, you should be willing to venture out and take a punch in the nose for it

[StorminNorman]

I think these demonstrations do as much harm as they do good. Marching rarely wins over the opposition, the intent is more often than not to intimidate.

People need to remember you can't force tolerance. Acceptance comes with communication, not intimidation.

[spideyboy_1111]

so why not?? Any struggle for equality comes at with blood, sweat, and sacrifice....you want equality, you should be willing to venture out and take a punch in the nose for it

ya need to get a big enough group to back it.. .3 people on the street in compton with signs... means were probably not going to come back alive.

[spideyboy_1111]

I think these demonstrations do as much harm as they do good. Marching rarely wins over the opposition, the intent is more often than not to intimidate.

People need to remember you can't force tolerance. Acceptance comes with communication, not intimidation.

again, we've seen very little complaints, and very little of anything that hasn't been support. So what harm ?

[wiegeabo]

I think these demonstrations do as much harm as they do good. Marching rarely wins over the opposition, the intent is more often than not to intimidate.

People need to remember you can't force tolerance. Acceptance comes with communication, not intimidation.

I don't think the point is to win over the opposition. That's rarely going to happen without a lot of arguing.

I think they're attempts to bring attention to the apathetic and middle-of-the-road voters. That's a significant percentage of the population who don't care or could go the other way, but just haven't seen a reason to do so because they've already got what they want and/or don't realize how bad it is.

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think the point is to win over the opposition. That's rarely going to happen without a lot of arguing.

I think they're attempts to bring attention to the apathetic and middle-of-the-road voters. That's a significant percentage of the population who don't care or could go the other way, but just haven't seen a reason to do so because they've already got what they want and/or don't realize how bad it is.

you sir are correct.

[StorminNorman]

I don't think the point is to win over the opposition. That's rarely going to happen without a lot of arguing.

I think they're attempts to bring attention to the apathetic and middle-of-the-road voters. That's a significant percentage of the population who don't care or could go the other way, but just haven't seen a reason to do so because they've already got what they want and/or don't realize how bad it is.

And I think the demonising of the other side does nothing to win over apathetic and middle-of-the-road voters. The Miss California controversy was, IMO, a defeat for the Gay Community. Calling anyone who disagrees a bigot and a homophobe does nothing to generate conversation about the topic - and conversation is what is so very important for the success.

[spideyboy_1111]

And I think the demonising of the other side does nothing to win over apathetic and middle-of-the-road voters. The Miss California controversy was, IMO, a defeat for the Gay Community. Calling anyone who disagrees a bigot and a homophobe does nothing to generate conversation about the topic - and conversation is what is so very important for the success.

Ill agree to an aspect of that.. but to be honest, the whole reason it was a controversy was for the fact she believed in denying people rights, and i personally felt the media favored our side. If it hurt us, imo it isn't noticeable. I do think She was attacked for her personal beliefs over board of what she should have been, but i will not say she's a victim of anything.

[BlackLantern]

ya need to get a big enough group to back it.. .3 people on the street in compton with signs... means were probably not going to come back alive.

You don't think it's a cause worth sacrificing or dying for??

if you're scared to venture into "enemy" territory, just come out and say it

[mclay18]

See I don't understand it. As a bi-male I don't understand why people do this. I mean I know being gay sometimes can lead you to acting more feminin and such but that doesn't you need to be Prom Queen. Unless you are a man who dress and wants to be treated as a woman, well that is differnt. As a gay you are able to be prom king. It does the same thing.

Exactly. There was a similar story a few months back in Fairfax, VA where a gay man was crowned Homecoming Queen. But unlike the guy in California, he was applying under his drag queen persona and appeared as such.

[Kelly]

so why not?? Any struggle for equality comes at with blood, sweat, and sacrifice....you want equality, you should be willing to venture out and take a punch in the nose for it

I agree, it took women picketing outside the white house for years, and finally being thrown in jail, and a hunger strike that almost killed most of them before a vote in the senate even was talked about.....sacrifice is a part of the journey....


And even once Gay Marriage is deemed legal.......that doesn't mean the journey for equality is over....no where near it. One thing that is in their favor, and that is the fact that as far as the work area, etc......males are able to compete in salary with other men, straight or not. Women still can't do that in the corporate world.

[Schlosser85]

if you're scared to venture into "enemy" territory, just come out and say it

Would you be scared to go alone out among racists? And if you are, does that make you a coward, as you seem to be insinuating about us because we don't care to volunteer to be the next Matthew Shepard?



And I think the demonising of the other side does nothing to win over apathetic and middle-of-the-road voters. The Miss California controversy was, IMO, a defeat for the Gay Community. Calling anyone who disagrees a bigot and a homophobe does nothing to generate conversation about the topic - and conversation is what is so very important for the success.


I'll agree that Carrie Prejean should not have been attacked the way she was simply for honestly answering a question that she was asked point blank. But Perez Hilton does not speak for the overall "Gay Community", even if he thinks he does, a term I don't especially care for anyway. No one calls heterosexuals "the Straight Community", as if they're a cohesive, monolothic entity that all feel the same about issues.

Most people, gay and straight, thought Hilton was acting ridiculous and many gays felt even more strongly that he was being embarrassing.

I remember, Norman, what you said before about it not necessarily being reality, but perception, that counts, and as far as that goes, I guess I see your point about people like Perez hurting the gay movement. It's a lot like people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with the black civil rights movement, doing more harm than good and giving homophobes and racists ammunition.

[BlackLantern]

Would you be scared to go alone out among racists? And if you are, does that make you a coward, as you seem to be insinuating about us because we don't care to volunteer to be the next Matthew Shepard?

I would be scared, but if the cause is worthy...

I didn't say anyone was a coward, I was just asking if he was scared....you can be scared of something and not be a coward....a coward is someone who willingly takes the path of least resistance every time without fail

[StorminNorman]

Ill agree to an aspect of that.. but to be honest, the whole reason it was a controversy was for the fact she believed in denying people rights, and i personally felt the media favored our side. If it hurt us, imo it isn't noticeable. I do think She was attacked for her personal beliefs over board of what she should have been, but i will not say she's a victim of anything.

But her view is the same shared by Barack Obama!

[StorminNorman]

I'll agree that Carrie Prejean should not have been attacked the way she was simply for honestly answering a question that she was asked point blank. But Perez Hilton does not speak for the overall "Gay Community", even if he thinks he does, a term I don't especially care for anyway. No one calls heterosexuals "the Straight Community", as if they're a cohesive, monolothic entity that all feel the same about issues.

Most people, gay and straight, thought Hilton was acting ridiculous and many gays felt even more strongly that he was being embarrassing.

I remember, Norman, what you said before about it not necessarily being reality, but perception, that counts, and as far as that goes, I guess I see your point about people like Perez hurting the gay movement. It's a lot like people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton with the black civil rights movement, doing more harm than good and giving homophobes and racists ammunition.


Bingo.

[Marx]

*cough*PerezHilton*cough*

You know... I may be pro-gay marriage and them being treated like everyone else and having all the same rights..... but Perez Hilton makes me want to beat a gay man to death.

Perez Hilton is not a good representative for the gay community. Not at all. The Miss America situation is proof of that.

god dammit Ohio :(. One of the reasons i don't wanna move back... I might be a 2nd class citizen in california, but least im in a city where its more accepting :(. damn hicks

You also have to remember that this area is Boehner country. The same area that I was threatened with gasoline and a match for campaigning in 2004 for the Democratic ticket. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[BlackLantern]

You also have to remember that this area is Boehner country. The same area that I was threatened with gasoline and a match for campaigning in 2004 for the Democratic ticket. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

is that part of the "real America" that the Republican Party likes to talk about so much??

[Marx]

is that part of the "real America" that the Republican Party likes to talk about so much??

I believe so. (Though I doubt Cincinnati would be considered 'real America' since it is a 'big city'...but the suburbs, yeah.)

That whole 'real America' crap was such a joke. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

[Nivek]

I would venture to say that some of the more ill-informed members of the black community would see it as "We still don't have equality, what makes the gay community so special? you can get in line and wait, just like we have been"

you're also fighting the church as well, as far as the black community is concerned


I've heard similar attitude from some people in life and on air. It is greatly troubling.

[spideyboy_1111]

You don't think it's a cause worth sacrificing or dying for??

if you're scared to venture into "enemy" territory, just come out and say it

i'm not afraid of enemy territory... i'm afraid of GANG territory. There's a difference. I'd march in Orange County or Bakersfield or Palmdale any day. Compton i wont even drive through.

[spideyboy_1111]

But her view is the same shared by Barack Obama!

to be fair obama side steps... Obama even came out during the election and said prop 8 is not a good idea (because of the fact it takes rights away), Miss California has adamantly been in favor of prop 8. HUGE difference.

[spideyboy_1111]

Perez Hilton is not a good representative for the gay community. Not at all. The Miss America situation is proof of that.



You also have to remember that this area is Boehner country. The same area that I was threatened with gasoline and a match for campaigning in 2004 for the Democratic ticket. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif

eek :(, if i have to move back home, the school i'd have to attend is in cinci :( big eeek! lol