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

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

You seem to have a different definition of civil rights than I do. Part of the generally accepted definition includes "the rights to full legal, social, and economic equality" - primarily for blacks when first instituted, but it applies to many groups (excluding goat fuckers of course, because among other things, that's an issue of beastiality and being in a relationship with a party that's unable to express it's thoughts and desires).
And the simple fact is that the rights regarding marriage do exist, which is why those who penned, backed, and voted for prop 8 in California felt it necessary to actually create a constitutional amendment that specifically prohibited same sex couples from being able to marry. So they were very literally and actively stripped of their constitutionally guaranteed right to "social equality".
Since we're at the point where you're actually asking me to defend my position against goat fuckers - which I did in my parenthetical above incidentally - I'd like to ask you a question, and I'd really appreciate a serious answer. Keeping in mind what we've already discussed, what are the good, logically sound, non-discriminatory arguments against same sex marriage in your opinion, and why?

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

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

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

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

One other thing I think should be addressed is that marriage is a religious institution,

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

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

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

How that can be irrelevant to you is beyond me.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I do have a different definition than you. Because I don't really consider marriage a civil right any more than getting a hunting license is.

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Again, I'm not really seeing it as an equality issue; I can't marry another guy either.

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

Do you think that it's a civil rights violation that not everyone can run for President?

No, because I actually understand what civil rights are.

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not making point of beastiality to equate the two issues. I'm saying that in both cases, they are essentially arguing to change the rules of marriage as they exist now.

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

I'm not going to argue against gay marriage because I don't really believe the reasons that there are against it, but I would say one of the best arguments against it would be to say it's not necessary. The law allows me to smoke tobacco, but not marijuana; do I feel like I have the right to smoke marijuana if that's my preference? The point is I don't feel like there's a right that a gay person doesn't have right now. They are trying to legislate the rights of "couples", which I think itself would need to be defined before going further. I think the idea of a "couple" is too abstract right now and can lead to some of the issues I related above.

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

[34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j]

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

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

How that can be irrelevant to you is beyond me.

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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

I think I'm losing track...

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

Originally Posted by Sean

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

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

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

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

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


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

[Strangelet]

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

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

No, just you.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

When I say it's irrelevant, that's because it's irrelevant. Okay, here's the difference. We can legislate against same-sex marriage and prevent that from happening, which is why people are vocal about it. We can't prevent spousal abuse.

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

This argument would be like shooting down a law preventing mental patients from getting guns on the grounds of "there is too much gun-related violence anyway, so why wouldn't you be focused on that?" Could I argue: what's the bigger threat; a few people getting the means to defend themselves, or a nation of murderers who kill each other in cold blood? It makes no sense.

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

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

Originally Posted by 34958hq439-qjw9v5jq298v5j

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

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

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

[Strangelet]

Originally Posted by Sean

I'm happy to continue discussing it if you'd like

you have the patience of job, my man.