Proposition 8 - Totally Gay Corollary Observations
 

I've been watching a lot of news lately (it's become too easy to extract the humor in "Husband-Rapes-Wife" Lifetime shows) and there's a lot of hype about Proposition 8 in California. If you're not already aware, for the longest time gay people couldn't wed. In the year 2000 Proposition 22 legally prohibited same-sex marriage because a lot of gays were asking for their right to wed and those in power wanted to quell the gay's thirst for "dirty" sex.

Then in May 2008 the Supreme Court basically said*, "Hey, it's cool. Tie your knots, gay boys! And you women can tie… well, you can rub your knots since you don't have pricks and can't tie tits."

*Said in a more colloquial manner.

So for six glorious months married gay couples were actually recognized by the state of California. Veil stocks soared, penis-shaped party favors were sold out across the state (they'd already been sold out in San Francisco for years) and those 99 Californian right-wingers quickly sought shelter from the barrage of Matrimonious Mo's.

"Don't look at them Timmy! Avert your eyes! You might want to marry a man one day, too, lest you stare!"

It was a time of celebration for the gay community. Finally their constitutional rights were being recognized and the validation served as an inspiration not only to gays, but to any demographic that faced discrimination and prejudice.

But then, in a religion-fueled campaign that netted nearly $38 million, Californian voters at the November polls supported Proposition 8 which eliminated the gay's right to wed - and suddenly all those dirty gays with their dirty butt secks found their sin-soaked marriage certificates null.

The church had scraped up enough money for their campaign and with a swift palm to the forehead, rebuked the gay community. Proposition 8 also amended the state constitution to say, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"We're safe now, Timmy! Those heathens aren't recognized by the State! Put a check in the box for Jesus!"
"But mom," cried Timmy. "They're still together. They're still gay. And once a constitutional amendment has been granted it can't be taken away. It's just that now they just don't have a piece of paper. How is that a moral victory? It doesn't change anything for you… other than you get to deny other human beings their rights."
At that, the mother chided her own kin with a swift bludgeon of the KJV, text messaged her pastor, and requested him to immediately exorcise the gay demons that infiltrated her son's puerile mind.
"OMG KK OMW" he responded.

So here we are now. People on both sides are pissed off. And it begs the question to those who oppose same-sex marriage: How does this affect you? Please answer this question without resorting to law; either our constitution or your religious decree.

Can you tell me how it will change your hetero lifestyle? Will your food taste different? Does it alter your shopping experience? Do you hate gays? Is it 4chan? Did brief exposure to 4chan gaymeme sway you this way? Was it that "What What In the Butt" music video?

I think most religious people are ignorant, but they deserve the right to be ignorant.

Have your religion! Wear your garb and drink the (grape-flavored) Blood of Christ! And the (Triscuity) Flesh of Jesus! Pray to an invisible being and adorn your immaculate marble-and-gold-leaf-encrusted temples of worship with the sadistic portrayal of a mythical man being hideously murdered! Do all this while people starve on the streets! GOGOGO! Collect money from your parishioners so your temple can have new oak pews and exotic felt-lined hand-crafted solid-brass communion trays!
...

You know what? I think The Church does some really wonderful things and some really shitty things. But I firmly believe in their right to conduct their ceremonies and exercise their beliefs in spite of my personal deliberations.

Isn't it in your nature to do the same? I know some of you religious folk are more progressive... But some still cling to the maxim of a 20th-century institution.

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

Oh really? Pray tell, did God intend for males to fuck their mothers? Because unless Cain or Abel railed Eve for the sake of posterity, I don't see how that homogeneous scenario transcends beyond two generations.
___________________

I have children and I don't want them to be gay. But not because I disagree with the lifestyle - I don't want my children to be gay because of ignorance toward sexual orientation. I don't wish upon my child to be treated unfairly. Gays aren't treated fairly. They're not afforded the same opportunities as "traditional" couples. And while I fall under the male demographic that thinks lesbianism is cool and gay men acts are typically gross (though if I had to blow a dude it would probably be Ryan Reynolds) I still feel that gays deserve the full benefits of our constitution.

"Our Bill of Rights make no mention of allowing homosexuals to marry each other!"

News Flash: In its inception it made no mention of only permitting a man and woman to wed each other, but was amended at the behest of religious zealots.

And so-effin'-what if our founding fathers didn't intend for those rights to extend to homosexuals? What, like they were perfect angels? Yes, their idealism is the functional premise for this democracy, however, their personal views should be considered postscript. Those men had fucken slaves, man! SLAVES! Man.

"I don't agree with homosexual marriage because it ruins the sanctity of marriage!"

But what is "sanctity" if it isn't a fundamental form of exclusivity? All it means is that something is spiritual, holy. Why can't gays have sanctity? Would Jesus deny a gay person? People who use this argument essentially believe in the Christian sanctity of marriage. Which is fine. But it's reinforcing the belief that federal-recognized matrimony is a right exclusive solely to heterosexuals. The "sanctity" of marriage = the exclusive right of Christian heterosexuals to wed. It isn't and shouldn't be available to anyone of different sexual orientation by this line of thinking.

Do Jews believe in the sanctity of marriage? How about those of Muslim faith? The fact is they do. But this country wasn't founded on their views. This ideal is not inherently Christian. (Just goes to show that while religions can't agree on a personal savior, bias toward orientation indeed crosses denominational and theological boundaries.)

"We should provide gays an institution of union that doesn't tread on the 'sanctity' of marriage!"

How?

SEMANTICS!

Instead of using the religious term "marriage" they can have "Civil Unions". They get the same state recognition and partner benefits they deserve without sullying the church's ideal. The paperwork is filed in the same manner.

"But wait... Hasn't this been done already?"

Yes, it has!

And it was SHOT DOWN by the religious rite. Virginia tried their hand at Civil Unions in the late 90s and and they were crushed. They even strayed from the "married" verbiage to widen the gap for the sake of religion and it's overtly sensitive drones.

There's really only one way to do this; let same-sex partners get "married". I promise, it won't cheapen your marriage at all. If this were to be suddenly amended you won't open your front door only to see your wife looking at you in disgust.

sanctity of marriage is the only good argument i've really seen for gay marriage, and that's because it's hard to understand. I don't necessarily think it has ONLY to do with something spiritual, though.

I can name a few differences, though. if you give everyone the same benefits as straight people, then tax/insurance and other benefits will cease to be as good. Insurance companies couldn't afford to give homos the same benefits as heterosexuals so the insurance will NATURALLY have to adjust the way they distribute their benefits. Thus, an actual affect which heterosexuals could suffer at the hands of homosexual marriage.

I could try to give you an explanation for the sanctity of marriage that involves stuff like those benefits and other stuff, but I really don't know if that's the sanctity of marriage, or me just being charitable ;/

i think i made one in that homo argument i had with jeanette in the philosophy forum ;o

the other problem is pro-gay marriage people.

A pro gay-marriage person might call that a separate but equal institution

Good post, it's definitely a completely ridiculous situation whichever way you look at it. What ever happened to turning the other cheek or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? I guess gay-hatin' takes precedence.

One thing and I hate to bring it up but it annoys me so much:

This doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't know why but no one in the world knows when the correct time to say "which begs the question" is

Is common law marriage still around? They would definitely need to reword it. For some reason I think you can get divorced from a gay marriage in Texas but cannot marry there. I'll have more later.

Thee is no common law marriage in California, it went out in the late 90's I think.Also, I didn't know that the faggots and lesbos that got married during that six months marriage license is null and void. Are you sure of that? I don't feel like looking it up, I might turn gay if I go to those web pages.

It doesn't in any way whatsoever, which is why it's complete bullshit. It's pathetic that issues like this still even exist these days. Oh how far we've come and yet how far we still have to go...

I don't even like putting a hot dog in a bun. It's all one big gay bbq, buddy you can count me out, I'm from the south, you won't find no wiener in my mouth!

(if you sing it like a country song it sounds even better)

We need to start u.s.a. #2.

this whole thing is stupid and had better be overturned by the courts.

why would anyone (who isn't a total idiot) vote for the government to dictate what a religion should believe, (so long as their actions don't cause others harm - which this in NO WAY does). if a church/religion believes in marrying gay couples it's no one elses business. how would they feel if we voted that you can't believe in jesus just because we don't believe in jesus.

fucking stupid

there is absolutely no logical argument that can be made against it.

though one could argue the state shouldn't recognize marriage at all and that's certainly fair as well.

i'm so sick of all this bullshit

If we allow gays to marry, we'll have to allow Mormons to have 20 wives. No thank you.

Call it what you will, just don't call it marriage. Liberals think that opponents of gay marriage are hateful homophobes, but I'd say the majority just have a problem with gay ladies and gentlemen calling it "marriage". At least George Takei is happy, which makes me happy

What's wrong with having 20 wives?

That's 20 times as much nagging. Who would want that anyway?

Government shouldn't be dictating marriage in the first place. They should recognize civil unions and leave the definition of "marriage" to the people. If you want to have a marriage, go to church. If you want matrimony without the religious BS, get a union.

I kind of agree McClain. Sometimes i think that marriages should be done on a religious basis. If it's really a religious or spiritual institution it should be fine for any church to marry anyone (although what about dogs and children and stuff right) that they truly believe should be married. Whereas the legal benefits should exist as a legal institution. If marriage is treated as a legal institution completely then a lot of arguments are voided, so most people avoid that. There is really no reason why homosexuals who have the same lifestyle as heterosexuals shouldn't receive similar benefits and statuses, and generally those types of things are delivered by a legal or political institution.
mostly though i think it avoids only valuing one religious definition of marriage which is actually a conflict of church and state... usually people dodge that accusation by saying something like, "separation of church and state is only designed to keep the STATE out of the church, not to keep the church out of the state."

does marriage mean anything besides legal benefits? i think its interesting that people think of people who are married as like i dont know, cut off or something. Like you shouldn't fuck them. It's a magic spell. There's really no reason for it, but most people, openly at least, think its wrong to fuck people who are married.

ive had this argument 1000 times, at first i just wanted to know what their reasons were for opposing gay marriage, because certainly then i could win them over with logic and eventempered debate. but the reasons are dumb. scaremongering and misconception and fabricated statistics. it doesnt bother me so much anymore, its relaxing enough watching the ebb and flow. gay marriage is inevitable and everyone knows it.

If I have sex with 20 women at the same time withought supporting them, I'm a god. If they are my wives I'm a pig.

They should just ban marriage in general. All it does is lead to arguing.

It's obvious that marriage is a failing institution in this country. There are lots of ways to remedy the issue... but progress will be stifled due to religious zealots and their disregard for civil progression.

what is the purpose of marriage, McClain?

Sure, if someone can make a convincing argument that certain people, when they are born, have a natural perdilection towards polygamy, and that it is not merely a choice they make when they subscribe to a certain religion.

SAN FRANCISCO — The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.
In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters.
But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon further reflection and a deeper probing into all the aspects of our Constitution.
"It became evident that the Article 1 provision guaranteeing basic liberty, which includes the right to marry, took precedence over the initiative," he said in an interview Friday night. "Based on my duty to defend the law and the entire Constitution, I concluded the court should protect the right to marry even in the face of the 52 percent vote."


There is no way it's going to last

Don't they only get so many do-overs though.

California is like an America inside an America. We really do whatever the fuck we want.

that's what happens everytime. Voters vote gay marriage in. Then it gets voted out. then it gets in again. Its stupid.

i don't think there is a limit on "do-overs" otherwise people could completely ingrain something into our society just by having it voted in or out enough times. I don't really know though ;/

Okay. Straights can be married on Mon, Wed, Fri. Gays can have Tues, Thurs and Sat. I'll take Sunday.

Yep, democracy is stupid. Dictatorship is the way to go. Tell me how to feel and what to do.

shut up, twassy. Democracy is the tyranny of the asses. The asses tells you how to feel and what to do.

:rolleyes

:rolleyes

The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Since you're asking me, I'll give my answer. And since I'm about 3/4 the way through a bottle of Merlot, you'll get a long-winded version.

It's an act of desperation. It's a move to secure benefits. It's done under pressure. It's done as a public display of devotion. It's done because it's the normal thing to do.

While it's not always all those things it's typically at least one of them. But I do know that our modern concept of marriage can basically be broken down in to three parts; the courtship, the wedding, the wedlock. Marriage is a term we use to encapsulate all three aspects of matrimony. Courtship is a social more, the wedding is a religious event, and wedlock is a legality.

The modern purpose of marriage is to have a union recognized by the state. But because this country was founded by God-fearing Christians, it's clear their convictions were imposed as these rules were produced and amended. And even after we've made the distinction of separation of church and state our country remains seemingly innocuous to this civil prejudice.

And this is precisely why many consider it a "failing" institution. Because our understanding of this norm has evolved but our laws haven't. But those understandings evolved because Christian religion in our country is changing. And Christian religion is changing because this religion, as with any other, is typically a reflection of the society. A perfect example is how our interpretation of scripture has changed considerably in the past 50 years alone - an honest case study of theological evolution considering the New Testament is 2000+ years old. Think about it... How much have things changed from our parents generation to ours? And so on and so forth. Religion is a reflection of economic conditions.

My ultimate point is that denying gays the ability to formalize their union is a matter of denying human and civil rights. Personal convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized within a personal (not public) manner; individually, through organized institutions or as a family.

The American Evangelicals are dictating personal choice based on aged mores using "crusader" money collected via special interest groups across the nation. It doesn't matter what the purpose of marriage is to me or anyone else. What matters is that as long as the government is involved there needs to be that separation of church and state.

The Divided States of America seems more topical.

So, basically, what you are saying is that anti-same-sex marriage mentality is the result of being socialized in a system which has, since its inception, been against same-sex marriages due to their religious convictions. Also, because its so ingrained in our culture we never really considered that it may be inappropriate.
Are you saying that, currently, the institution of marriage is merely an institution of prejudice? If not, I think merely pointing to prejudices when trying to determine purposes, or whether something is right or wrong, is entirely irrelevant. Otherwise, it may be partially relevant.
And, then, it's a failed institution because so many people have recognized that it is prejudicial, and it hasn't changed to fit our modern conceptions?
When you say things like, "OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NORM HAS CHANGED," you mean you. Not christians, or other anti-gay marriage people -- even though it may have changed, just not in the same way. i would continue to say that there is still a lot of people, maybe a majority of them, against gay marriage, but that just goes down the route of ad populum and squables about the future...

Do you think that people are against same-sex marriage ONLY for religious reasons, including the founders of our country? Are all the people who are against same-sex marriages christian? Don't they sometimes give social and material reasons why they are against it, as well, rather than just merely prejudice and religion?

When I asked for purpose I meant more like, what purpose does marriage serve for the state? Or a religious institution? or just society period? not necessarily what purpose marriage serves for the individual.

How? Why should gays be allowed to get married? Why shouldn't people be able to marry dogs, or adolescents? Why no polygamy (a lot of this stuff could be said to have the same type of religious origin as anti-samesex folk)? No rights are ultimately being denied the homosexual in particular, they aren't restricted from getting married, just from getting married whoever or however they want.
I think adolescents is a particularly interesting topic, because there are so many arguments going about whether or not they have the ability to rationally consent to things like patient assisted suicide. So, if a 14 year old can consent to patient assisted suicide, why not marriage with a 43 year old sex offender?
but that is an aside: what about marriage is a human or civil right which should be oriented towards homosexuals and not just heterosexuals?

another good question is what about marriage is a human or civil right which should be oriented towards only heterosexuals ;o
Aren't homosexuals basically saying that their convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized in a public manner?

I guess I should have phrased my question differently:
What is the purpose of marriage: what is the function of marriage in society? How do gays fulfill this function or purpose?

Even if there was a complete separation of church and state, its still possible that marriage could be between a man and a woman only. There is nothing about that which is explicitly religious.

How spoiled we are, when we claim victimhood and prejudice when we don't get everything we want.

Make no mistake, I'm not an opponent of gay people, nor have I ever been. But this is about changing the definition of an institution. I'm not comparing homosexuality to anything bad, but why shouldn't we change the definition of marriage to allow marriage to multiple wives, husbands, even animals and inanimate objects? Doesn't everyone deserve to be happy?

Too often have I seen Americans berate their country, but only talk about our "bountiful freedoms" when they feel that they're at a risk.

I'm 100% behind letting gay people have an exact replica of marriage with a different name. It's a monogamous partnership, which is what our country values. But, if you're going to change the rules, you also need to change the name.

I agree whole heartily! You n*ggers don't get to vote anymore, we shall call it "tovel" or some other word. All I care about is that there is a line between what the n*ggers and queers do and what I do!

Oh and fuck the women too! Bitches.

Tadao, you're Asian. The only line between you and a n*gger is that the n*gger can pleasure a woman.

Separate but equal ;/ gays aren't really 100% behind that idea.

:lol



:tear

Then they get NOTHING, they LOSE, good DAY sir! :lol Life's a bitch.

This is just a reminder to everyone: if you ever find yourself saying "I'm not a _____, but..." chances are, you are a _____.

Be careful about likening gay marriage to bestiality. The last guy who did that publicly wound up getting his name turned into a synonym for anal leakage.


Seriously, though, you bring up a good point: Now, I love my computer, but up until now, it hasn't been a problem. But with all this talk of gay people being allowed to get married, I'm starting to feel a little worried. It used to be that when I went to defragment the harddrive, if you know what I mean, my computer understood that this was as far as we could go. When it got fussy, I would go buy a new video card, and that was the end of it.

But what if gay people are allowed to be married? That means that sooner or later, I'm going to have to marry my computer! I can't afford to be in a monogamous relationship, people. I'm too young! Sure, things are great now, but sooner or later, I'm going to want to take this one apart and build a new one. One with a slimmer case and a more flexible file system. My last computer, I gave to my brother. Can you imagine how much trouble I would've been in if I had been married to that machine? Oh, the angry emails I would have received!

I've never liked that statement or the reasoning behind it.

This is just a reminder: Sometimes, you have to say "I'm not a ___" because some people are just too quick to point their fingers.

And I made a disclaimer. I'm not likening gay marriage to bestiality - but you tell me - where does it end?

I'm not a korean, but sometimes I enjoy korean food. :(

What?

It's not that big of a deal. It's already been done. Ever heard of an amendment? It's a *GASP* change to the definition of an institution! Our constitution NEVER intially made any direct reference condemning the union of gays. It had to be amended to say that only a man and a woman can wed. Your concerns about having to "redefine" an institution don't hold water. Besides, Proposition 8 did exactly what you're saying shouldn't be done as it made a DIRECT change to the definition of an institution and changed a state constitution.

Are you serious? This argument is so feckin' irrational I can't even begin to formulate a response. And I hear it all the time. Sad.

A union by any other name is a union. As long as it's recognized by the state who fucking cares what it's called? Gays don't give a shit if you call it a Marriage or a Civil Union or MoMatrimony. They want their rights.

So yeah, sounds like you are on board. What was all that previous prattle about? You're concerned about semantics?

No.

And to be honest I don't care about what other people think. It doesn't even matter how I feel about gays. This issue isn't about being pro or con for homosexuals. This isn't about whether or not the average citizen agrees with their lifestyle. It's about humans being denied their civil rights and being human enough to recognize the issue.

The reason most of the onus is on the Christians is because they're the ones that raised the money for Proposition 8. They campaigned. Had it been the Fraternal Order of Police that raised the $40 million they'd be the ones I was speaking about. I'm smart enough to realize that prejudice isn't exclusive to religion.

What? First you ask why gays should be allowed to get married. So you obviously recognize that marriage is a right available exclusively to straight people. But then you turn around and say that no rights are being denied to homosexuals? I understand that perhaps you're playing the conservative advocate for the sake of the argument, but you need to shore up some holes first.

Please don't lump in this issue with other issues like humans being able to marry goats or have multiple spouses. Those are completely seperate issues and making one akin to the other is an act of rationalization and desperation in lieu of a coherent argument. Gays are not dog fuckers. Gays are not asking to have 50 spouses.

No. Seperate issue. Sure there will always be people advocating the tolerance or acceptance of gays, but this is a different issue.

I don't know your reasons or his reasons or her reasons. I don't give a shit about anyones reasons. This isn't about personal conviction or any of that other shit. It's about our government making rules and allowing the church to maintain exceptions.

Do you not understand that the primary groups in opposition of gay marriage are religious groups? NRA didn't campaign. NAACP didn't campaign. NOW didnt' campaign. The Church did campaign.

Difference is two gay men or women are consenting adults. Someone trying to marry a cow is probably animal abuse. Someone trying to marry a child is child abuse.

---

People often try and claim that the underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage isn't religious but if we look at developed societies which were not concerned with religious dogma - for example the Roman empire - it's a whole different story.

McClain:
A homosexual man has the same right to marry any woman who agrees or whatever, and a homosexual woman has the same right to marry any man she wants. It might not be WHO or WHAT she wants, but lots of people are denied who or what they want.
There has to be a reason for it besides THEY DONT GET WHAT THEY WANT.

Well, right. That's not what I'm saying at all. But you're kind of begging the question by saying they are being denied their basic civil rights, and that its wrong, without ever supplying actual reasons. How are they being denied their basic civil rights?

Actually, it's perfectly coherent. If people should be able to marry in whatever consenting fashion they want, then why not be able to have 50 wives? That's why I'm asking you for your reasons: one reason you've stated is for a basic human and civil right. What about being married to 2 women if all of them consent and agree to it is wrong? Why isn't it as much their civil right as it is homosexuals?

Why wouldn't we let three people marry each other? What's the difference between us limiting marriage between people of the same sex and limiting people from marrying more than one person?

The problem with making any coherent argument is that you have to give a reason which doesn't allow negative things in. If an anti-samesex person said homosexuals can't get married because they can't procreate, then post-menopausal women and sterile men shouldn't be allowed to get married either. It's a natural, logical and even typical extension.
ok... so... I guess I misunderstood you. i thought you meant their personal convictions as in their ability to marry. But now you are saying they are just trying to spread their what untolerance and unacceptance of gays?
ok.

I don't know usually personally i avoid saying things like that because it's kind of ad hominy and irrelevant.
Ok, you don't care about reasons. You just think laws and institutions should just be started for no reason or on the whims of select persons in society.
not only that but we should just be able to make unsupported statements expressing only an opinion or conclusion.

I get what you're saying about prop 8 itself, though. It seems the people on the no side had no motivation and support; whereas the other side was clearly well motivated. There were also a lot of other important events going on at the time. Not only that, but there is probably a large demographic which really has little interest in marriage but isn't necessarily against samesexmarriage which didn't vote because they had little motivation or time.
But it doesn't really matter. My guess is that it will soon be over-turned in another election, just like prop 8 was designed to over-turn something else. The no side will have more voter turn-out and prop 8 will be just like all those other antisamesex things in california.

also is the church maintaining exceptions or is it a democratic voting process? Anyway, I don't really have anything to say about that stuff. No offense but it reeks of fallacy.

They don't? Rights and getting married are different. Many gays can obtain their rights through alternate paths easily, but they still call for actual marriage. Which rights are being denied to them, besides not being able to get married?
Its called separate but equal. You know like when black people had to have different schools and stuff -- different instutitions?

look at this article, for example:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4866721&page=1
Not only that but if you're only concerned with them having unions/rights then what's the big deal? I can't remember but does prop 8 say that they can't have civil unions or a separate but equal instutition and/or any of the similar rights obtainable through other means like advanced directives?
i dont know ill just stop here...

I am straight. I am married, happily so. I am Christian (Catholic to be exact). I live in the south (someone mentioned this as if it influenced your position to gay marriage). I can tell you honestly that no amount of gay marriage can affect me or my marriage. It cant affect my wife or our son. If it were one gay couple on our block or even if it was everyone down our street. The feelings and love we have for each other and the strength of our marriage could never be hindered by anyone other than the two of us weather we liked them or not, weather we agreed with their life choices or not.

If you are against gay marriage, answer this same question and please tell us HOW they could possibly affect you, your family or your marriage (or relationship / possible future marriage if your not married).

MetalMilitia:
What about being group married to two women if all of them consent, and the women want to marry each other too? They are all consenting adults. What is wrong with it.

People usually bring up children/animals when people say, "People should be able to marry whoever they want." If we should be able to marry whoever we want, and we want to marry them, then blah.
But then you change the definition to CONSENT. WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD REASON FOR GAY PEOPLE TO BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED kIND OF. However, that's why people bring up being married to multiple wives, or group marriages. They can be consenting. If consenting people should be allowed to get married, and everyone in a group marriage consents, then they should be allowed to get married.
How many other consenting arrangements are there which society would impugn?

I hope this helps anyone who had a problem understanding how group marriages and animal marriages etc. is actually relevant to the discussion.

lol interesting example since most of the religious chastising of the new testament actually refers to Rome's debauchery.

What about from a purely legal stand point? If you throw religion out the window for a minute and just look at the legality of it? Why not allow gays to marry?

I said this in something like the second post in this thread but anyway, "I can name a few differences, though. if you give everyone the same benefits as straight people, then tax/insurance and other benefits will cease to be as good. Insurance companies couldn't afford to give homos the same benefits as heterosexuals so the insurance will NATURALLY have to adjust the way they distribute their benefits. Thus, an actual affect which heterosexuals could suffer at the hands of homosexual marriage."

I wasnt aiming that question at you. I know your answer to that one. But... to an insurance company or even the IRS your just a name on a file that sends them money. Your gender or sexual orientation doesnt play into rates or tax bracket. If they pick up 100 new married couples they are still going to take your money then deny coverage when you need it weather your straight or gay.

From working in the insurance industry there wouldn't have to be that much of a change actually. A lot of companies already offer "Partner" benefits that are they same coverage as if they are married.

Tax breaks might be an issue.

Aren't gays, like, only a small margin of the population? Wouldn't Insurance have to compensate for the growing population (straights' fault, there) anyway? Households with an excess of childeren are a bigger drain on taxes/insurance than a handful of poofters; outlaw those.

Well, then gay people have options. So what are they bitching about? I mean really, what rights and benefits are they ultimately being denied?

We need excess children, though, especially right now with our type of demographic growth. Gay married people don't do anything for society other than be happy or maybe adopt children. We don't need them. That's why you give people rights and benefits, so that they can fulfill some sort of social obligation. What social obligation do gay people fulfill?

i don't really know about them being a small margin of society, though. But it's not really a matter of if they are a small margin of society, but what margin they would be of married couples.

Really now? :confused:

yep.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap226.htm

one example ;/

Notice it talks about privilege. Is marriage a right or a privilege? that was just the first thing that came up when i typed "rights and duties"

Just past allowing consenting adults being allowed to marry each other, and just short of allowing adults to marry children, animals, and inanimate objects.

In a strange, sick way, I miss Senator "Frothy Mixture". :lol

There will always be someone else to create amusing Daily Show/Colbert Report clips.

This thread is so gay.

Its easy to say that, but more difficult to give a reason why it should stop there if it doesn't stop at homosexuals and group marriages. People say, "LET THE HOMOSEXUALS HAVE WHAT THEY WANT AND BE HAPPY." Well, why not let people who are in to bestiality have what they want and be happy?

As for consenting adults, a man could marry 50 consenting women. Is there anything wrong with that?

Why shouldn't "adults" be able to marry mature "adolescents"? The only reason most people can think of is because the law says that adults can't fuck children (and they can't enter legally binding contracts...). Well, WHAT IF THEY DONT FUCK THEM until they are 18? Are all marriages about sex?
And the law isn't really a viable means to assess competency and the ability to consent, so maybe some adolescents should have the right to be able to marry

So does that mean that an infertile couple will also be denied the right to be "married"? :confused: Or is OK because they have the right set of "parts" and they just don't work right? Careful with this argument, it earned me a "C" on my final thesis paper in Philosophy 101.

The institution of marriage is one that has transcended the church, and has become part of the legal establishment. In this regard, I believe that the GLBT community is being denied a right that is afforded to heterosexual couples merely on the basis of orientation. Plain and simple, this is discrimination, it's repugnant and it has no place in our society.

Unfortunately, there it is. :(

:lol

I guess we should just send them all to Monster Island then.

edit: Monster Peninsula

That's because you said gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't procreate. Not that we shouldn't stop having lots of children because they fulfill a social need, which is what somebody proposed.

I think that calling anti same sex marriage supporter discriminatory, prejudicial or any other negatively loaded word is wrong. Quite frankly, your philosophy professor would have probably accused you of a circumstantial/abusive ad hominem and been done with it ;o

Again, homosexuals aren't really being denied any rights. Its just that the right does not entail them being able to marry whoever they want. Its just like the right to free speech, if you're inciting a riot with hate speech and somebody slaps your mouth and hauls you off to jail, your right to free speech hasn't been infringed. Hate speech isn't protecting by the right to free speech. kind of accidenty...

Basically, yeah. I'm 100% on board and I'll always support rights for gay people. It's just the principle of the name of marriage. I understand that it can be amended, but I'd just be happier if it wasn't. :)

People with 5+ kids aren't doing society a favor, they're homogenizing the gene pool, and that's no good. And some fertile couples opt out of childeren altogether, not just infertile ones. By your definition, they're the worst offenders.

Is anyone actually gay or interested in the same sex in this thread? Just wondering.

it takes more than five children to homogenize the gene pool. And besides that, isn't there often more genetic variation between siblings than between the parents?

I'll get back to this in a second. It's kind of a good point, except that I was pointing to an affect that homosexual marriage has on heterosexual marriages (since people say that there isn't even one), you brought up children having a similar affect, and I mentioned that children are necessary for society whereas gay marriage is not. I did not say that children justify marriage.

Ssush you! We are trying to decide what is best for them.

I'm transsexual and I've been with guys and girls ;/

I talking later on. If their childeren follow suit, that's working with exponentials. And seeing that families this big are out of the norm, that really bucks the genetic ratio.

Fair enough, but you bring importance of giving back to the whole. Many different lifestyles are in effect not best for the whole, but it follows the persuit of freedom and all that jazz.

:aok

Except furries. They should put them in camps and gas them.

honestly having five children isn't going to fuck up the genetic diversity ;/
I don't even think it's possible to homogenize the human race at this point.

I bring up the importance of institutions serving a purpose for society.

lol maybe infertile couples should only be able to have domestic partnerships :O

that solves like every problem. There would be no separate but equal institution because the purpose of a domesticated partnership would be to gain rights and benefits as a COUPLE, whereas marriage would be to gain rights and benefits as a family producing couple.

Without getting off on a tangent about what the age of consent should be, I would say that it would be too difficult for children and animals to understand the ramifications of marriage. Children will believe just about anything you tell them because they don't know any better, and as for animals, there has been argument over whether or not some animals can perceive pain, let alone give legal consent to anything.

What about group marriages? And what about adolescents? The difference between a 15 year old and a 19 year old in competency isn't often all too vast.
I don't really think very many adults understand the ramifications of getting married ;o what are the ramifications?

We've seen a bunch mentioned in this thread already: insurance and tax breaks are some of the secular parts of marriage. Then you've got to deal with members of the religious community who have objections to that particular union. They thought they has issues with Adam and Steve getting married, but that was before they ran into Cynthia and Seabiscuit.

Those are just a few, but you bring a good point: not that many adults understand the ramifications of getting married. If grown men and women are having trouble wrapping their brains around this stuff, what chance do our kids and pets stand?

Edit:

And while I'm asking questions, I have one for those of you who believe gay marriage is on a slippery slope leading down towards bestiality, pedophilia, marrying your VCR, etc: how do you envision those acts gaining the same level of support that is currently enjoyed by gay marriage (that is, where enough people are in favor of legalizing it that it is a subject of significant debate)?

Dr. Boogie, if we've learned anything from this thread its that we don't care what religions think and they are just discriminatory and prejudiced towards equestrians-human relationships.
Dont let their prejudice and hatred steer america down the wrong path

and dr. boogie people just have to learn that getting married is frivolous and stupid, and understanding the ramifications are unimportant -- then everything will be fine.

The bottom line is that a horse broke Christopher Reeves' spine, and because of that, horses will never be allowed to mare-y.

I thought it was because they always voted "Naaaaay"

Don't forget that all of these relationships are capable of complete consent and understanding: group marriages, polygamous marriages, adolescents, aliens.

also retarded and stupid people shouldn't be allowed to get married because what the fuck do they know about the ramifications of marriage? They are incompetent.

What's your opinion about group marriages, polygamous marriages, adolescent marriage alien marriage and marriage with anything that's disgusting but capable of consenting?

it doesn't really matter if the reasons somebody is stating for not taking something as fact will ever be considered a good thing by most people in society. The fact that everybody thinks it is bad is part of what gives it so much weight. Their reasoning is sloppy enough that it could just as easily allow horse marriage as gay marriage -- and nobody wants horse marriage.

What you've done is just change the definition or reason why gays should get married from, "THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT CAUSE THEY WANNA" (which is usually people's initial reasoning) to MARRIAGE SHOULD ONLY BE BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS, which as I mentioned earlier, is a better argument. but it still has holes.
And anyway, it takes the criticism towards one set of reasoning and makes it look ridiculous by applying it to another set of reasoning. In short, you are a straw man.

Just to be clear... what is the difference between group and polygamous marriages? And aliens? Really dude? Next you will be saying that in the future dogs will have cyborg brains and therefore can consent and yada yada yada...


I think he answered it right there. Consenting adults. That is where you draw the line.


Not to mention we can easily say one marriage at a time. There are plenty of polygamist in the USA and they seam to be just fine and dandy doing things the way they have been.


18 is the legal age of consent. Not just for sex but for anything. You cant sign any contracts before 18 (or if you do, you cant be legally held to it) this includes marriage. Now some states do allow people under the age of 18 to get married. I dont have a list of these states or what their requirements for marriage to people under the age of 18 are but it happens and its legal no matter how much people dont like it.

Homos have been allowed to get married in Canada for a few years now, and look what's happened to us! :O

PS. It's nothing.

PPS. Seriously.

Group marriages often have more than one of the same sex, I would assume. So like, 3 guys and 4 girls would be group marriage. Whereas 1 guy and 5 girls would be polygamous.

Yea and I responded to it, you vapid fuck. Polygamous marriages are between consenting adults. Do you notice how that's relevant? Do you need me to underline "consenting adults"?

good idea. Or if we started sending all apes to school.

Uh, you can't JUST SAY IT. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A REASON. And it would be one marriage. One huge marriage. But why should you only be able to have one marriage? There's no reason why, it's just prejudice. Probably, it has the same religious/cultural roots as antisamesex shit.
I can just say that gays shouldn't be able to get married at any time.

ok i said it i guess the argument is over on that one

and using the "Natural" argument is retarded. For one, there is nothing natural about marriage. Two, what happens in a lion's pride :( and many early societies were polygamous rather than monogamous.
Natural is ambigious. It could refer to anything that exists. When he said that i thought it was a joke because its so ridiculous.

and what do you mean just fine and dandy? POLYGAMY IS ILLEGAL.

samesex marriage isn't only illegal because people don't like gays.
court or parental approval is necessary. most to 16

Ok. Thank you for the clarification.

No need to get nasty man. Just having a debate. That was in response to the ad absurdum of "our society will have to accept bestiality"

:rolleyes

You can easily make the law say marriage is between two consenting adults.

"Natural" who said any of this was "Natural"?

Polygamists in the USA today have a legal marriage to their 1st wife or whatever and the others just live there or nearby and say they are married. Because you can only be married to one person at a time in the USA, we wouldnt have to change that now would we? This works fine for them and they dont complain.

Your argument was that if we let gay people get married then we would have to let people who want to marry kids get married to kids. I was saying that people already marry kids and you cant blame gay marriage on that.

I've noticed that Kal is just being argumentative. We all know that bisexual dudes with fake tits like to twist things up for their own gratification.

I've noticed that idiots on the internet like to pretend like they have invested so much intelligent thought into something but really they just want the gratification of people seeing that they've thought about it and in reality they have no reasoning or thought process only I THINK LIKE THIS MAKE IT SO *CLAP*.

There's nothing different about samesex marriage supporters and detractors. Neither has a single good argument or reasoning, and both sides are a bunch of assholes who just want to state their opinions.

and my tits aren't fake, dummy. And duh I'm being argumentative. But that's because you guys make stupid arguments ;/

Exactly. You're retarded like everyone else in this thread who can't see the logic behind that.

SUPPORTERS OF GAY MARRIAGE: Gay people should be able to get married because they want to.
UNSUPPORTERS OF GAY MARRIAGE: So people should be able to get married to animals because they want to.

same logical form. Quite frankly, if people who are supporting gay marriage don't want bestiality to be brought up, THEN MAYBE THEY SHOULDNT MAKE RETARDED ARGUMENTS.

You can easily make the law say that marriage is between up to ten consenting adults. Or that it's only between a man and woman.

And if you're going to limit marriage to two people, why not limit to opposite genders?

So why don't gay people just pretend they are married. I mean, a gay guy could marry a woman THEN on the side have like an extra husband. Perfect.

These social problems are really easy to solve.

You're a fucking idiot. There are some people trying to get rights to polygamy.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=1064&fsdt=4457&q=%22legalize+poly gamy%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Nobody blamed gay marriage for it being possible to get married before age 18. I think you misunderstand the nature of criticism entirely.

How do you define "retarded" and "stupid"?

Group and polygamy: eh, I've got nothing against them. But as for adolescents marrying aliens, I must point out that aliens have technology far superior to our own. Why, in "Destroy All Humans!", the main character was able to use mind control to manipulate the human population. So I ask you: what is your opinion of mind controlled marriages?

The reason I ask is because the slippery slope is the one I see thrown out the most as why we shouldn't legalize gay marriage. I want people who honestly believe that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing bestiality and such to stop and think for a moment. That gay marriage is legal doesn't lead directly to men marrying children. If they can't explain what happens in the interim to change these acts from taboos to accepted lifestyles, then their argument is chaff not fit for the horses they fear will be married.

On the contrary, what I was saying had very little to do with gays at all. I was answering your question of why pedophiles and zoophiles shouldn't be allowed to get married. At this point, gay marriage is barely even involved in the discussion. Of course, the irony is that I declined to talk about the age of consent because I felt like it would be getting off topic.

Oh, vanity, thy name is Dr. Boogie!

If you cant see the difference between two same sex people getting married and someone getting married to a dog then I dont know what to tell you. The fact that you keep bringing up the same lame arguments and are now resorting to name calling is just proof that this conversation is going no where fast. Once again we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.:\

This is exactly why they took analogies out of the SATs.

Obviously that is non-consensual, so no ;o.

Oh, I understand. No I don't think I or deadkennedy are talking about gay marriage actually eventually resulting in bestiality or marrying inanimate objects. It's just a criticism of somebody's reasoning. Personally, I don't think legalizing gay marriage would ever result in bestiality. However, people give out extremely sloppy reasons for legalizing gay marriage.When people give out sloppy reasons why gay marriage should be supported, they sometimes inadvertantly give a reason why bestial marriage should be supported, as well.
Maybe some people misunderstand that type of criticism and assume it means that it will actually lead to bestiality, but it doesn't actually say whether gay marriage is good or bad or will actually lead to these things. Only that the reasons which somebody has given could also be given as reasons to support this other thing

It's similar to this: Let's say somebody defines good sexual acts as things which are natural (which people usually do because they think gay sex is unnatural, to which people usually point to the tons of animals which are gay or bisexual). In nature, usually male animals pretty much mate by raping female animals. So, it's good to rape women ;/
But nobody thinks that making a criticism like that would be bad, right? Naturalistic arguments are horrible.

Yea, I'm trying to explain to you how animal marriage is relevant to this topic. I hope you understand now.

Everybody knows they shouldn't be able to get married. That's why it makes an efficient criticism.
Me too, but you didn't really stay on the topic. You changed an argument which attacked one set of premises to another which had better premises to make it seem like the other person's argument is ridiculous. That's completely changing the topic.

I'm annoyed because you act like I'm making a bad argument when you clearly don't even understand the nature of a criticism ;/

and because people act like gay marriage is right for stupid reasons. "JUSTG BECAUSE" most of the time. Its just as dumb the shit antisamesex marriage people say.

Well now I'm just completely lost. I came into the discussion because I wanted to point out that gay marriage -> bestiality is a fallacy, but in doing so, I have apparently altered someone else's argument. Or my own, I've lost track at this point.

I'm getting the sense that no one really thinks that gay marriage could lead to things like bestiality being legal, so... good, I guess.

maybe some stupid people do ;o

but the intelligent ones just use it as a criticism for somebody else's argument. It's not so much that "WE SHOULDNT DO THIS BECAUSE IT WILL LEAD TO THIS" so much as, "We shouldn't do this for this reason because that reason also entails this."

I don't fuck animals, but I know why some people would.

I suggest we allow people to fuck animals as long as they put their name on a list.

I do not want to shake the hand of anyone on such a list.

"The proponents argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage and claimed that failure to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from May 2008 that recognized a right of same-sex couples to marry would damage society, require changes to what was taught in schools about marriage, and threaten the free exercise of religion."

"The opponents argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong."

Can we get back on topic?