Thanks for your input.....
I know I said I wasn't going to do this anymore.. but whatever..
Anyhow.. your argument, naturally, doesn't stack up... again..
Example... suppose it's illegal for a black man to marry a white woman. In Alabama, you would never, not even to this day, be able to get a majority of state residents to pass a law to allow a mix-raced couples to marry. Why? Because the voters of Alabama are too stupid to understand equal protection.
Hence, you have Loving vs. Virginia - which of course was handed down by the SCotUS in 1968 when 70% of the American public was opposed to the decision. Clearly, 70% of the American public were too stupid to be allowed a "vote" on the issue.
It's the same exact thing today. If you put a ballot initiative forward in Texas that prohibited inter-racial marriage today, it would pass. I guarantee it. Texas is full of Christian freak racists. I see them every day.. and boy are they complete idiots.
There is no "rational basis" to prohibit two people of the same sex from getting married. There just seems to be a lot of prejudices to get past, and I doubt it will ever happen in the United States. It's going to take another SCotUS decision, or decisions of the top courts in individual states, as happened in Mass.
How has that effected things in that state? Hmmm.. doesn't seem to have had any effect, save people are now treated equally.
So, why are you so rabidly anti-gay? I'm curious. Most people that are the most vocal about it have certain issues, if you get my drift. Those that are comfortable in their orientation really don't care.
Some self-examination may be in order, because you really need to consider what your point of view means. You have decided to put one class of people below another class, as if they are not "worthy" of the same rights as other people.
In response to that, I put you in an inferior class of people (but you already knew that). There are those that just don't "get it" and do not deserve to have the benefit of what a minority group of people have contributed to the world.
There are those that believe they are somehow superior by definition. That somehow you should be allowed to marry, but I should not. By any measure, I reject that.
In the end, opposition to same-sex marriage is indefensible. Schwarzenegger knows that, so he relies on the ignorance of the general California population as an excuse to veto the legislation.
There is not a single valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage that I could not easily rebut with simple logic. Not a single one.
And if you have some of your own personal conflicts that cause you to believe in this fearful and irrational way, I suggest you get some therapy for it. I've known people who have spent an incredible number of years lying to themselves, and when they finally open their eyes, they always wonder what took so long.
One other thought that occurred to me..
The whole reason for the "anti-gay agenda", is the pending destruction of religion in the United States.
The message of "love" does not sell in the U.S. Hate gets people's attention. Pandering to their prejudices gets their contributions.
Organized religion had been struggling for attention, and they chose to focus their hate on gays in order to get people back to church and back to contributing.
You are merely responding to that agenda item, and parroting what those people are saying.
Have an original thought for a change..
There is no "rational basis" to prohibit two people of the same sex from getting married.
Well what is the "rational basis" for two people of the same sex getting married?
-
Well what is the "rational basis" for two people of the same sex getting married?
Excellent question, glad you asked.
First, one of the most important principles in this country is the notion that all men are created equal. It is all about the equal protection clause.
Women should be able to vote. Minorities should be able to own property. There are any number of inequities that existed at the founding of this country that have been corrected over time. In legal theory, all American citizens are treated the same under law except gays, in terms of marriage. I don't see any other legal discrimination left in the law.
Correcting this inequity will clearly demonstrate that this country treats everyone the same.
Next, it provides legitimacy to same-sex families. There would be no more "back of the bus" mentality, at least in the law. It would encourage stable and monogamous relationships. The concept of marriage helps couples stay together by it's nature.
It would confer on gay American citizens over 1000 rights granted under federal law that they currently do not have. A hetero man can marry a Russian woman, bring her here, and get her citizenship, but an inter-country gay couple have no such recourse.
It also benefits children of gay couples.
The key ideal of marriage is mutual support and caring.. it's about being able to inherit, visit in the hospital, make decisions for a person that you're committed to.. and on and on and on.
If you don't believe that there is a whole laundry list of benefits, try taking marriage away from hetrosexual couples. See what you would be missing. Then you'd understand what is missing now for same-sex couples.
And why not? That's really the bottom line. Why not?
The only argument that can be made is a religious one.. and because our laws are secular and apply to everyone whether they are Christian, Jew, Muslim, agnostic or atheist all the same.. that is an invalid argument. We do not have the Christian version of "sharia law" in the United States...
And then there's the slippery slope argument, which has no merit.. there is a rational basis that bestiality is illegal. The animal can't give consent.. but try telling that to Rick Santorum.... ummm.. inceset.. biological rational basis.. bigamy rational basis is a little harder to explain, but I think it can plainly be seen that a 1 on 1 marriage is far more stable and productive then a 1 on 10 marriage. Any other slippery slope arguments?
and uh.. let me think.. what else? Um.. there's the "marriage is for procration" argument, but that's not valid either because we don't test for fertility before issuing marriage certificates..
So basically, you end up back to the Old Testement reasons. When you start stonning people to death for eating a shrimp, I'll go along with the idea that gay marriage is bad.
Finally.. Mass. is doing quite well. Canada seems to be doing fine. I don't see any negatives with it at all. Heteros still get married. They still have kids... and on and on..
So, I put forth the question to everyone who opposes same-sex marriage. Why? Let me deconstruct your argument (which is absurdly easy to do), and then you will suddenly become a same-sex marriage supporter. There is no natural dichotomy in being a supporter of gay rights and being a conservative. Being "conservative" really isn't a religious state of mind anyway. Most real conservatives support gay marriage. After all, Barry Goldwater did. But then, Goldwater lived in the days when you didn't wear your religion on your sleeve, and when you didn't have to be religious to be conservative.
You really need to move to Sweden.....
I can't even imagine what you think would change in sex-ed classes.
"Today Johnny, you're going learn how to take a fist......"
--------------
And what, if you got your way and same-sex marriage is made legal, would you do to people that continue to speak out against it?
Enact "hate-crime" laws?
Ban the Bible?
-
"Today Johnny, you're going learn how to take a fist......"
You do have quite the fascination on the mechanics of it, eh? Factually speaking, that's not a common practice. Still, regardless of how prevalent getting an entire hand shoved up your butt is, it has nothing to do with the legality same-sex marriage.
Or, maybe you think it does. Maybe you think that because some people (straights do weird things too btw) have unusual practices, that means millions of committed same-sex couples should not be entitled to be married. Is that the case?
And what, if you got your way and same-sex marriage is made legal, would you do to people that continue to speak out against it?
Well, first off, I'd be pleased to know that I could get married if I choose too, just the same as anybody else. I expect I'd fair better then most, all things considered.
Would I continue to speak out? Most likely not. I'd just ignore them as impotent hate mongers. There really would be no reason to have pride parades anymore, or even have a "gay agenda". It would just be life back to normal dealing with the same crap anybody else has to deal with.
In fact, I would think most hetrosexuals would be pleased, because the issue wouldn't be pushed in their face all the time. They wouldn't have to think about it.
Oh.. and as for banning the Bible.. the establishment clause takes care of that one. Personally, I encourage people to abandon organized religion, as that is truly the root of all evil in the world, but whatever spirituality a person wants to have is no skin off my nose. I wouldn't begin to push my religious sensibility on anyone through law, just as I expect they will keep theirs out of my life in the law.
So the answer is, let the religious people yell all they want. The vast majority of them are hypocrits and closet casses anyway. Jim Baker? Jimmy Swaggart? The louder they yell, the more they are hiding.
Which is why I think you might be conflicted. I could be wrong, who knows.. but I once took my straight nephew with me to a gay bar and he had a great time. We had a few beers. He met some people I know.. just a laid back fun time.. and he never had a single issue, or felt threatened. Simple reason why, is that he's married and digs chicks. He really doesn't think about sticking fists up people's rears. He simply values people for who they are, not discriminate or prejudge based on stereotypes. Oh.. and he's a GW1 vet (M1A1 commander), and far more a man then you will ever be. That's probably why he loves his uncle.
Anything else? I'd really like to see you make a rational argument why same-sex marriage isn't a good thing. You'd be the first, and I could probably get you published if you come up with a valid reason that stumps me.
How about the "icky" factor? You sorta allude to it sometimes. You know, the idea that gay sex makes a person nauseous, or something like that. Example; Bob and Nancy Smith are a happily married couple. Their neighbors are Bruce and Steve. Bob and Nancy don't think Bruce and Steve should be able to get married because the thought of what Bruce and Steve do to each other makes Bob and Nancy feel "icky". Oh gross!!!
Well, Bruce and Steve think what Bob and Nancy do is really gross, but they probably don't think about it all that much. They surely don't care what Bob and Nancy do to each other as it's none of their business. They certainly wouldn't want to deny basic human dignity to Bob and Nancy just because they have icky sex.
Oh.. then there's the "flaming queen" argument. You know, the one that says that all gay people are Liberace clones that run around town wearing purple chiffon. Well, Bob and Nancy are disgusted by that display, so they think that because those flamers have fem personalities, they should not be treated equal under the law.
Of course, that doesn't account for the fact that the vast majority of gay people are not effeminate. Regardless, basing law on the type of mannerisms a person has seems a might strange to me.
Anything else? I'm really struggling here.
Oh.. gays recruit kids, right? You'd have to be seriously deranged to believe that.
Umm.. gays are child molesters, right? Well, no.. the percentage of pedophiles in the gay world is about the same as the hetero world. I've seen some reports that suggest the percentage is higher in the hetero world, but my own personal belief is it's about the same.
Lets see, what else? AIDS? Well, there are far more heterosexuals in the world with AIDS than gays. The incidence of infection is higher with intravenous drug users now. AIDS in the hardest hit countries is overwhelmingly a heterosexual problem.
Besides - wouldn't encouraging gays to get married cut down on infection rates in that group? I'd think so.
I'm at a loss.. help me here.. why not gay marriage?
Oh wait.. I forgot.. the "tradition" reason. That's right. Marriage has "been this way for thousands of years", right?
Well, no. Marriage has evolved over a very long time, from arranged marriages, to polygamous marriages.. you name it, it probably existed in one culture or another.
The idea that marriage has always been "one man and one woman" is factually wrong.
I support the idea of 2 people in a marriage, as I think when you go past 1&1 it becomes exploitive.
Stil, regardless of what you think of the slippery slope argument, it's a stupid one as you cannot justify denying basic rights to a qualified group of people merely because you're afraid another group will take advantage of it.
"Stil, regardless of what you think of the slippery slope argument, it's a stupid one as you cannot justify denying basic rights to a qualified group of people merely because you're afraid another group will take advantage of it."
An argument Ox might make word-for-word against gun control!
But that's just an aside. I agree with Thomas to a certain extent. Courts are to review the constitutionality of laws passed, and that's where you got Loving v. Va., a good decision. Still is it in the mandate of an elected congress to circumvent the clear will of the people? (Again, I voted against Utah's Amendment 3 last election)
I'm glad you said that voters are "too stupid" to know what's best for them, because I think it reflects a baffling trend in liberal thinking, which honestly is the biggest turn-off for me of Democrats. There does seem to be a certain disdain for the common voter.
Simply put, that's why the gay marriage question will eventually be decided in the courts, not by elected officials.
One more thing...
"Well, there are far more heterosexuals in the world with AIDS than gays."
True, but we're not talking about "in the world" we're talking about the states, where the rate of people with AIDS is much higher among gay men than any demographic except I.V. drug users. Plus these numbers are fuzzy, as we rely mostly on people word on how they got the virus, and that is always debatable.
That having been said, I don't go in for this "spread of AIDS" argument. Indeed if anything the question of AIDS argues FOR gay marriage. On 10/30/04 I wrote this on my blog, "We as Americans ought to reward with tax breaks and so forth those people who are willing to enter into a monogamous long-term relationship, even if it’s a homosexual one, because if more people were a part of such relationships, we’d see a marked reduction in the spread of STD’s."
So in spirit I agree with you Thomas, but if we're going to quote numbers, they ought to be relevant.
So in spirit I agree with you Thomas, but if we're going to quote numbers, they ought to be relevant.
Of course it's relevant. My point was to rebutt the typical anti-gay marriage talking point about gay people and AIDS. My point was that AIDS is not God's wrath on gays, as it hits primarily heterosexuals. That is true in the United States as well, when you factor in iv drug users.
HIV infection rates in the gay community have been in steady decline, and that's certainly good news. I had many friends die in the late 80's, through the middle 90's. Now you almost never hear about someone dying from it. It's very rare.
But you're right. It amazes me that conservatives are not demanding that gays get married and form permanent monogamous relationships.
But again, it all goes back to the money machine of organized religion. That's why they fight it tooth and nail. After all, once same-sex marriage is legal nation-wide, all they will have left is abortion, and that's just not as big a draw as hating fags.
I just want to know what the reasons are that everyone is not demanding same-sex marriage now? Why not?
I'm glad you said that voters are "too stupid" to know what's best for them, because I think it reflects a baffling trend in liberal thinking, which honestly is the biggest turn-off for me of Democrats. There does seem to be a certain disdain for the common voter.
Oh yes, I'm being brutally honest there Nick. If you spent any amount of time with the types of people that think that way, you'd know why I call them "stupid".
If I wanted to take the time, I could examin the sociological reason why populations in certain environments behave in certain ways.
But, I'm not that kind. If somebody discriminates against another because of their gender. I call them an asshole. If they discriminate on the basis of race, I call them a bigot. If they discriminate on the basis of orientation, I call them stupid.
So, I guess you're unhappy with the Democrat's choice of words, not the validity of it. Nice..
You tell me.. In 1968 when Loving vs. Virginia was handed down, and 70% of the American public were opposed to inter-racial marriage, how would you describe those people? Intellectually challenged? Environmentally disavantaged? How about misinformed? That's a nice word...
Okay, Nick... I live in a state of rampant misinformation. I guess you do too..
Nah.. I like calling them stupid.
I read what you said again..
You're turned off by the Democrats not by their position on issues, but by the way they make the argument?
LOL
whatever..
Maybe I phrased that wrong. I'm not angry about how Dems argue their points. I'm turned off by the disdain generally displayed toward the average voter by the Democratic party.
I generally believe that people are good. Maybe if I had your experiences I'd think differently. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I believe that Americans will make the best decisions eventually. Here's hoping.
I think Arnold did what he was elected to do and that is to represent the will of the people. Good for him.
Yeah, the fisting example was a bit extreme but if same- sex marriages were made the law of the state the public school would then have to incorporate that into their curriculum.
Teachers would have to say that men have sex with women, and this is how it's done.
Men have sex with men, and this is how it's done.
Women have sex with women, and this is how it's done.
----------------------
There really would be no reason to have pride parades anymore, or even have a "gay agenda"
You really think the gay agenda would stop if same-sex marriages were made legal?
I don't. Look what's going on in Canada. Because of their stance on gays and their laws concerning "hate-speech", a Preacher reading from the Bible is deemed to be breaking the law because of what the Bible says about homo-sexuality.
--------------
Which is why I think you might be conflicted. I could be wrong,
Trust me, you're wrong. As I've said before, I am in no way shape or form gay nor do I have any inclination to "experiment" with any other male.
-------------
Not sure if I agree with your HIV/AIDS argument. I'm sure there are far more hetero's with aids because there's more people on the planet that are hetero and I'd bet not everyone with AIDS discloses that they're gay/bi.
Plus you say "in the world" and I'm guessing you're factoring in Africa which you just can't factor into that argument. I think there's a difference between contracting HIV/AIDS through a lifestyle, either by needles or sex, and contracting/spreading HIV/AIDS in a country where people believe if you have AIDS you can be cured if you have sex with a virgin.
The only way I'd buy that argument is if you could give me the total # of heterosexuals in the US and what percentage of them have HIV/AIDS and the total # of guy/bi in the US and what percentage of them have HIV/AIDS.
Then of course how would you factor in the Heterosexuals that contract HIV/AIDS from their partners that are engaging in drug use/unprotected sex and not telling their partner?
---------------
I found this a good read.
INTOLERANCE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values
I think Arnold did what he was elected to do and that is to represent the will of the people. Good for him.
artie | 09.09.05 - 12:02 am | #
At the risk of being condescending...
How would you describe the 70% of the American people who were opposed the Loving vs. Virginia decision? You might use nice words like "misguided". I call them "too stupid to vote". The same thing applies in California.
Artie, do you think we live in a democracy in the United States? Do you think that all the issues are put to a popular vote, and the majority wins? Well, sorry, but this is, in fact, a Constitutional Republic that we're living in.
The beauty of that system is that it prevents the majority from imposing injustice on the minority. At least in theory anyway.
Now, one could say that the Governor is not carrying out the will of the people by signing the legislation. Those that passed it were duly elected by the citizens of California, were they not? Then again, the veto exists for a reason.
By the way, Schwarzenegger's approval rating is at 36%, which is actually lower than Bush's 39%. That's a remarkable feat.
What I really find hilarious is that the right wing has been screaming about "activist judges" for ages, and went crazy when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court forced same-sex marriage on the state. They all cried that the legislature is where those issues should be decided in a democratic process. But, that's what happened in California, and now Schwarzenegger wants to say that the courts should decide? That's so hilarious.
The fact is, there are a great many Americans that are unhappy and jealous people. They want to take it out on somebody else, and the easy target now is gays. It seems it's no longer fashionable to target blacks (unless they are too poor to get out of a flooded city that is). Old habits die hard you know.
It is impossible for them to make a rational argument, as I suspect it would be for Artie, but they just like hating anyway. It makes them feel better about the double-wide they live in. (oops.. I was just condescending again)
I'm turned off by the disdain generally displayed toward the average voter by the Democratic party.
I have a great deal of disdain towards the average voter because the average voter is a complete moron (generally speaking of course). I read a study a few week ago Nick. The number of Americans who could correctly identify the 3 branches of the Federal government was about 50%.
Intellect is not a “value” in this country anymore. It has been replace by “God”, thanks to the Bush movement.
You would not make a very good engineer Nick, because you’re highly emotional and affected by presentation. Your top priority is not right and wrong. You are concerned about the packaging, not the goodies inside the box.
I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. People are as they are, and some are wired this way, and some that way. You just wouldn’t be able to survive where I work because you might get an e-mail that is cc:’d to 100 people that says very starkly that you screwed up. Me, I analyze it, determine the circumstances, correct the issue and respond. You would be upset that 100 people got cc:’d, or that your feelings got hurt, or you’d be concerned that it made you look bad in front of a bunch of people.
And if you walked into a managers office and complained because somebody made you look bad, they’d laugh at you.
A friend of mine back home in Phoenix told me that she voted for Bush because she didn’t like the way that Kerry looked. Now, I didn’t call her an idiot to her face, I just said “there’s a lot more to voting than appearance.” Inside, I was wishing there was a way she could have her voting rights stripped. The point being, ya.. I have disdain for that kind of voter, but there is a time and a place for expressing it. You don’t do that right into a friends face. I’m not a complete jerk in "real life" believe it or not.
Finally, to Ox’s point. Here’s the short of it. He’s saying that because some political things might happen that he doesn’t agree with, if same-sex marriage is made legal, then I should not have the same legal right as any other citizen of this country.
I’m not going to make schools start teaching gay sex in sex-ed. I’m not going to force preachers to change their sermons.
Why should I not have equal rights? Because of what other's might do?
I don’t suppose you see the disconnect there, do you? I bet you don’t. Let me draw an analogy that makes it plain.
Suppose the issue is not same-sex marriage, but rather emancipation for black people. You could write, “they will push for legislation barring us from using the N word, or bar the preacher from saying that blacks are sub-human in his sermon”. Because that might happen, your argument states that black slaves should not be freed.
In other words, you just threw out a big ol’ red herring, which has no legal standing what-so-ever. I’m serious here, are you relying on that argument in opposition to same-sex marriage now? Is that it? Surely there must be something else. How can you base denying me equal protection because of what others might try and do?
To address your concerns, an evaluation of sex-ed in school would need to be done, and licensed therapists should develop content that is appropriate for the age range of the audience. It can be done gently in order not to shock any kids. Perhaps the standard heterosexual class for everyone, with an optional class discussing homosexual behavior for those that are interested.
My vote would be to have minimal if not zero sex ed in school. Parents need to stop shirking their responsibilities to schools.
As for the preacher in Canada breaking the law? I’m not familiar with the specifics. It might well be appropriate in their society to prosecute him. In the United States, we have that first amendment thing.. A preacher can stand up and say that all black people should be lynched. In fact, I’d imagine they do at KKK rallies. It’s not illegal.
You would deny millions of people the chance to get married, which is a fundamental part of being a human being, because why? Because of an uncomfortable moment in a sex ed class that you think might happen? Because a preacher will get his 1st ammendment rights trampled on? Are you really that cold hearted? Do you really hate that much?
So, do you see how your argument holds no water? I can’t present it for publication because your interpretation of the consequences of legal same-sex marriage are both laughable, and unrealistic at the same time; while having absolutely nothing to do with law. Bravo!
Here's a hint if you want to make an argument that might actually have a tiny bit of merit. Go read Scalia's dissent in Lawrence vs. Texas.
Of course, that was a dissent, and hence has no legal standing. I also disagreed with it in just about every way.
But, Scalia was right. It opened the door to same-sex marriage, and since Lawrence vs. Texas is now precedent, I don't see how it can be stopped.
If society has no fundamental right to control the sexual behavior of two concenting adults in their own home, they have no fundamental right to exclude them from all public institutions.
Commenting by HaloScan
