Are you going to vote?

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

lol @ the rumsmeister
Took him long enough. >.>

What's a Rumsmeister?

If it's a new alcoholic beverage, I want one!

Wait...

No, I don't. It's probably Rum (which I like) mixed with Jagermeister (which I don't like)... Nevermind.

[Thoris]

Re: Are you going to vote?

5. Gay marriage is a foolish issue. Explanation of this below

Gay Marriage
This is just one of the "hot-button" populace division tools used by the political parties to carve up voters based on something that is relatively unimportant (a lot of people realize this especially after it was sooo big during the last election where it failed as a motivator as well, except among the gay community and its supporters and the Bible Bangers, which is where, I believe, it was intended to operate).

Basically, my thought on marriage is that... If you don't have any kids, you don't get squat. If you want to have contractual, legal, marriage or marriage like contract, this can be performed by a lawyer--you don't even need a justice of the peace. What this all boils down to is that gay couples wish to be able to use certain benefits of marriage that involve corporate money. For instance, coupled health care benefits, pensions, etc. Everything else can already be done. There are some tax issues as well, but they're relatively minor if there are no children involved. The Gay Rights movement wishes the Federal Government to force the companies that they work for to provide these benefits rather than having to voluntarily do so (which many businesses already do). It is also an attempt to be "included" in the word Marriage, even though Marriage is a religious ceremony and therefore not truly the business of the government in the first place.

My proposal vis-a-vis Gay "Marriage" is to do away with all mention of the word "Marriage" in law (as it is a religious element) and replace it with the term "Civil Union" which can be undertaken by any person or group of people who wish to combine their shared assets, possessions, and benefits into a single pile. However... One must remember than whenever one does something in law, one "breaks" some things that are good about the current state in order to "fix" some things that are not so good. In this case, Marriage loses more lustre. There is currently on the books a law that creates a "No Fault Divorce" and it has been the single greatest affront to the American Family since its inception, and I propose that it be done away with. There's no such thing as an NFD when there are children involved. "We've grown apart" doesn't give you license to go f_ing anything you want and screwing up your kids. If you've got kids and you're married, you don't get to have NFD, you give right up in exchange for services from the government that are to your benefit--which means you can get royally screwed if you actually have a "Fault", but that you can't just "go your separate ways" when you get bored if you've got kids...

I could go on for hours, but I think I'll stop there until prodded again.




Very good points but as i a Gay young man i have to say me and my partner can get teh best lawyer in the world but there are always loop holes. here some thing sto think about


Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Well, that's the most often heard argument, one even codified in a recently passed U.S. federal law. Yet it is easily the weakest. Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined? The married? The marriable? Isn't that kind of like allowing a banker to decide who is going to own the money in stored in his vaults? It seems to me that justice demands that if the straight community cannot show a compelling reason to deny the institution of marriage to gay people, it shouldn't be denied. And such simple, nebulous declarations, with no real moral argument behind them, are hardly compelling reasons. They're really more like an expression of prejudice than any kind of a real argument. The concept of not denying people their rights unless you can show a compelling reason to deny them is the very basis of the American ideal of human rights.

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. That's an interesting one, in light of who society does allow to get married and bring children into their marriage. Check it out: murderers, convicted felons of all sorts, even known child molesters are all allowed to freely marry and procreate, and do so every day, with hardly a second thought, much less a protest, by these same critics. So if children are truly the priority here, why is this allowed? The fact is that many gay couples raise children, adopted and occasionally their own from failed attempts at heterosexual marriages. Lots and lots of scientific studies have shown that the outcomes of the children raised in the homes of gay and lesbian couples are just as good as those of straight couples. The differences have been shown again and again to be insignificant. Psychologists tell us that what makes the difference is the love and commitment of the parents, not their gender. The studies are very clear about that. And gay people are as capable of loving children as fully as anyone else.

Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they percieve to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible. Not all world religions have a problem with homosexuality; many sects of Buddhism, for example, celebrate gay relationships freely and would like to have the authority to make them legal marriages. In that sense, their religious freedom is being infringed. If one believes in religious freedom, the recognition that opposition to gay marriage is based on religious arguments is reason enough to discount this argument.

Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species. The proponents of this argument are really hard pressed to explain, if that's the case, why infertile couples are allowed to marry. I, for one, would love to be there when the proponent of such an argument is to explain to his post-menopausal mother or impotent father that since they cannot procreate, they must now surrender their wedding rings and sleep in separate bedrooms. That would be fun to watch! Again, such an argument fails to persuade based on the kinds of marriages society does allow routinely, without even a second thought, and why it really allows them - marriage is about love, sharing and commitment; procreation is, when it comes right down to it, in reality a purely secondary function.
The proponents of the procreation and continuation-of-the-species argument are going to have a really hard time persuading me that the human species is in any real danger of dying out anytime soon through lack of reproductive success.
If ten percent of all the human race that is gay were to suddenly, totally refrain from procreation, I think it is safe to say that the world would probably be significantly better off. One of the world's most serious problems is overpopulation and the increasing anarchy and human misery that is resulting from it. Seems to me that gays would be doing the world a really big favor by not bringing more hungry mouths into a world that is already critically overburdened ecologically by the sheer number of humans it must support. So what is the useful purpose to be served in mindlessly encouraging yet more human reproduction?

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage. Well, that one's contradictory right on the face of it. Threaten marriage? By allowing people to marry? That doesn't sound very logical to me. If you allow gay people to marry each other, you no longer encourage them to marry people to whom they feel little attraction, with whom they most often cannot relate adequately sexually, bringing innocent children into already critically stressed marriages. By allowing gay marriage, you would reduce the number of opposite-sex marriages that end up in the divorce courts. If it is the stability of the institution of heterosexual marriage that worries you, then consider that no one would require you or anyone else to participate in a gay marriage. You would still have freedom of choice, of choosing which kind of marriage to participate in -- something more than what you have now. And speaking of divorce -- to argue that the institution of marriage is worth preserving at the cost of requiring involuntary participants to remain in it is a better argument for reforming divorce laws than proscribing gay marriage.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution. This is morally the weakest argument. Slavery was also a traditional institution, based on traditions that went back to the very beginnings of human history - further back, even, than marriage as we know it. But by the 19th century, humanity had generally recognized the evils of that institution, and has since made a serious effort to abolish it. Why not recognize the truth -- that there is no moral ground on which to support the tradition of marriage as a strictly heterosexual institution, and remove the restriction?

Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment. The American critics of same-sex marriage betray their provincialism with this argument. The fact is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Denmark since 1989 (full marriage rights except for adoption rights and church weddings, and a proposal now exists in the Danish parliament to allow both of those rights as well), and most of the rest of Scandinavia from not long after. Full marriage rights have existed in many Dutch cities for several years, and it was recently made legal nationwide, including the word "marriage" to describe it. In other words, we have a long-running "experiment" to examine for its results -- which have uniformly been positive. Opposition to the Danish law was led by the clergy (much the same as in the States). A survey conducted at the time revealed that 72 percent of Danish clergy were opposed to the law. It was passed anyway, and the change in the attitude of the clergy there has been dramatic -- a survey conducted in 1995 indicated that 89 percent of the Danish clergy now admit that the law is a good one and has had many beneficial effects, including a reduction in suicide, a reduction in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and in promiscuity and infidelity among gays. Far from leading to the "destruction of Western civilization" as some critics (including the Southern Baptist, Mormon and Catholic churches among others) have warned, the result of the "experiment" has actually been civilizing and strengthening, not just to the institution of marriage, but to society as a whole. So perhaps we should accept the fact that someone else has already done the "experiment" and accept the results as positive. The fact that many churches are not willing to accept this evidence says more about the churches than it does about gay marriage.

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.
If concern over the "slippery slope" were the real motive behind this argument, the advocate of this line of reasoning would be equally vocal about the fact that today, even as you read this, convicted murderers, child molesters, known pedophiles, drug pushers, pimps, black market arms dealers, etc., are quite free to marry, and are doing so. Where's the outrage? Of course there isn't any, and that lack of outrage betrays their real motives. This is an anti-gay issue and not a pro marriage issue.

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right. Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.

Sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently. Ah, the ol' sodomy law argument! Why was sodomy illegal in so many states for so long? Because conservative religionists (at whose behest those laws were enacted in the first place) historically blocked or vigorously resisted attempts to repeal them in every state, and were horrified when the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the ones that remained.
Indeed, those laws were very rarely enforced (though it did happen), yet there was very stiff and angry opposition to their repeal. Why? Because they were a great tool for a homophobe to use as a basis for legalized discrimination. "Why should I rent an apartment to you, an unconvicted felon?" "I can't have an admitted criminal on my staff." "You're an unconvicted felon. I want you out of my restarurant and off my property." "I don't want you around my children. You're a sex offender!" These were very real, actual arguments that were used frequently as a basis for legalized discrimination, using largely unenforced sodomy laws. So even though this particular moral crusade of the religionists using the power of the police has ended, at least for now, the sodomy laws that made them possible are still being pushed, and pushed hard. Crass politicians, including even president George W. Bush, see votes in homophobia, and continue to push for sodomy law reinstatement as a means of securing those votes. And such laws, which have thoroughly discriminatory effects by intention, will likely will be advocated for as long as politicians see votes in allowing conservative religionists to impose their morality on others, regardless of the violence this does to the intent of the Bill of Rights.
Heterosexuals would never stand for such intrusion into their private sex lives, of course, but the homophobes among them seem to see nothing wrong in using the power of the state to enforce their prejudices. State court systems, however, long ago began to see the violation of the Fourth Amendment in such laws, and nearly as many state sodomy laws were overturned as unconstitutional by state supreme courts as were repealed by state legislatures, before the recent U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas decision which very pointedly overturned all that remained.

Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples. While this may or may not be true (based primarily on state labor laws), the reality is that many businesses already do offer these benefits to gay couples, and for sound business reasons. And experience has shown that when they do, the effect on their costs for offering these benefits is minimal - very rarely does the cost of benefits offered to gay couples cause the business' benefits costs to rise by more than 1.5%. This trivial cost is usually far more than offset by the fact that the company is seen as being progressive for having offered these benefits - making its stock much more attractive to socially progressive mutual funds and rights-conscious pension funds and individual investors, and thus increasing upwards pressure on its price. This is why so many corporations, including most of the Fortune 500, already offer these benefits without being required to do so - it's just good business sense.





Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so. This argument, usually advanced by churches that oppose gay marriage, is simply not true. There is nothing in any marriage law, existing or proposed, anywhere in the United States, that does or would have the effect of requiring any church to marry any couple they do not wish to marry. Churches already can refuse any couple they wish, and for any reason that suits them, which many often do, and that would not change. Some churches continue to refuse to marry interracial couples, others interreligious couples, and a few refuse couples with large age disparities and for numerous other reasons. Gay marriage would not change any church's right to refuse to sanctify any marriage entirely as they wish - it would simply offer churches the opportunity to legally marry gay couples if they wish, as some have expressed the desire to do - the freedom of religion would actually be expanded, not contracted.

[Aksannyi]

Re: Are you going to vote?

That's an amazing post ... your arguments are so well written. I have no real stance on gay marriage at the moment, but you've defintely laid it all out there. Good job.

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

An initial comment on Thoris' post--I'll come back and post after a bit.

It is very difficult to argue with a brick wall because the brick wall has neither the capacity nor the desire to change.

[Thoris]

Re: Are you going to vote?

i am happy u guys enjoyed my post. I have written that a long time ago and still use it. Thanks very much....

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman....snipped

This is primarily a semantic issue. As I stated, marriage, in and of itself is a religious rite. Therefore, it is the right of a religious organization to define marriage amongst it's believers. The government is Constitutionally barred from interfering with this. My basic plan as outlined above, is to separate the religious institution which I call "Marriage" with the secular institution (aka The Business End) which I call a "Civil Union" or the collection of property, assets, and the assignment of spousal priviledges and rights between two or more people with no added mention of dependant persons.

Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children....snip

This is also a very good fundamental argument for the reformation of the adoption process. It is the character of the individuals raising the children, not their gender, which determines the wellness of the children in the environment.

Gay relationships are immoral.

Your point is basically nullified by the nature of the people you are arguing with. "Bible Bangers" as I call them believe that the Biblical text is above all law and will never lend support to any position that they are not explicitly told to by their clergy. They are sheep, but they are very, very loud sheep (and they bite). As for religious arguments, if you are going to argue with religious people, you should refer to the Big Kahuna of Church Doctrine himself, The Pope (whom Bible Bangers don't generally listen to, but who really cares, they're practically useless for the purposes of logical argument anyway).
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

I will say this... The Popes are most certainly not idiots, nor are they fools. It is very, very difficult to counter their arguments--Papal Encyclicals are elegant logical constructions of theological writings and thought. It is basically impossible for you to counter an Encyclical because in order to do so you would have to make citations of Catholic theology that are contrary to those of the Pope.

Americans, however, are not (necessarily) the Pope's subjects and the Papal arguments are non-secular and thus cannot "technically" be used as justification for legal action or legislation. All things American are supposed to be based on a secular form of social contract that has its roots in a semi-Puritan doctrine. That is not to say that the American Secular Social Contract is religious in it's nature (even though it is), but there simply needs to be a foundation.

You do not need to argue with Catholics on the matter, because they do not care who other religions choose to marry. Their doctrine only involves which Catholics can marry which is, as I said, where the term marriage is defined--in individual relions. Also, be advised that Catholics are also bound by doctrine not to hate homosexuals but to accept that a homosexual is not necessarily homosexual by choice (this is mentioned in the above encyclical and you can find other references)--I think you'll find very few (if any) of them carrying placards in protest of various gay-related events (e.g. parades and such). You will find neither Methodists nor Unitarians there either (I doubt you'd see Lutherans either). What you will find are sects of fundamentalist protestants (without naming any specific branches for fear of reprisal). IMO Fundy Protestants are almost as bad (doctrine-wise) as Fundy Muslims--the difference being that Fundy Protestants have historically been more fond of "Strange Fruit" than "Martyrdom".

Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species....snip

Sex is for procreation. That should be obvious. Homosexuality is basically an atypical form of the "standard" (procreative) sexual behavior. This mechanism can be observed in non-sentient species and is, contrary to what many zealots say, not unnatural (unless, of course, homosexuals are the product of genetic manipulation or stem cell research. ^^)

While overpopulation may be looked at as a problem, one must also realize that the survival of one's culture and values is also important. The US is currently promoting means to curtail population growth--condoms, cheap birth control, abortion, etc. The Catholic Church owes its longevity to the ir absolute refusal to allow these things. My brother and a friend of mine are better at Catholic Doctrine, but I believe the basic idea is that "Sex is for making babies"--it is a sin to use a condom, and furthermore that you have deliberately and voluntarily suspended procreation whereas a homosexual is not so deliberate because it is by his nature (not his choice) that he does not follow this policy. [I'll state here that the reason I bring up Catholic Doctrine so often is that it is one of the most logical forms of religious doctrine notwithstanding Rabbinical arguments which I'm not nearly as familiar with.]

Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.

The only thing I have to say here is a brief restatement of my initial position and that is: Divorce is the greatest threat to the institution of marriage in the US, certainly not Same-sex marriage. I refer specifically to the no-fault divorce.

Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.

I don't even listen to an argument that starts like this... Tradition is not a valid logical foundation for an argument.

Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.

Good points in the argument, but even if this point is taken to be true and valid:

We are Americans. Americans are pioneers. "Don't knock it until you try it."

Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.

This is one of my favorites. ^^ ^^
A dog or a toaster cannot legally enter into a contract therefore it cannot be married to anyone. Polygamy is already legal in one state (Utah) but is no longer supported by the CJCLDS (Mormons). It's not illegal for unmarried people to have sex any way--voluntary incest between concenting adults is also not illegal. A Civil Union is merely a business contract--it has no association with sex or procreation. Therefore there is no "slippery slope" to slide on in the first place since we already don't care who your banging...

Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.

No comment. This argument is obviously nonsense unless you define "special" in a "special" way.

Sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently.

In order for a practice to be illegal, one must logically argue why. Anyone who would use this particular phrase is most likely incapable of logical thought and therefore not worth arguing with.

Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples.

Business success depends on customers. Alienating Fundies causes them to boycott thus reducing sales. A business is generally not concerned with this type of morality except when it cuts into their bottom line.

Gay marriage would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so.

Refer to part 1.

[Telera]

Re: Are you going to vote?

Your point is basically nullified by the nature of the people you are arguing with. "Bible Bangers" as I call them believe that the Biblical text is above all law and will never lend support to any position that they are not explicitly told to by their clergy. They are sheep, but they are very, very loud sheep (and they bite).

I have issue with that. I am religious, but I am not a sheep, nor do I go where any clergyman points me, as I have become disillusioned with churches anyway. I study on my own. My stance on Gay Marriage so far as government is concerned is that the Government has no right to impose any religious doctorine, and that seems to be the only 'big deal' argument against Gay Marriage. So, in essence, my idea is that the Christian sect has no right to tell the homosexual community they cannot marry, just as no other sect has any right to tell the rest what to do. Therefore, it should be legal. The government cannot make a law that essentially sanctions one religion over another. Theocracy is a bad, bad thing.

Do I find Homosexuality morally wrong personally? Yes. But that is my choice after long study. Does that mean I hate/wish to deny them rights? Not at all. I have a very close homosexual friend and wish only to see him happy in life, and if he were to marry, I would gladly go and wish him well.

Yes, there are sheep Christians, but the problem with them is they blindly follow the religion anyway. They don't believe it because they studied it and found it to ring true to them, they follow it because they were just brought up that way. These people are another reason I stopped going to church, along with many other issues. I had a major crisis of faith in my teen years, studied various things and came to my own beliefs in the end, so I'm 'Christian' but I don't affix myself to any group other than what I've come to on my own reading.

[Sabaron]

Re: Are you going to vote?

You should not feel it necessary to lump yourself into the category I used called, "Bible Bangers". It is intended to be moderately inflammatory and is characterised by sheep-like behavior, a general holier-than-thou attitude, and a propensity for "throwing stones".