NY Times: US, In Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights

[Sarge]

Man, I must have lost my touch or something. I've been in and out for three pages of a gay thread and no one is pissed off at me

 

[fansince62]

Is it really a choice?

no it's not. and neither is being physically repulsed by homosexuality. and this is one of the core deceits in all of this. on the one hand...being gay is a genetic roll of the dice...but being repulsed by it is somehow an intellectual matter.

and that is the Left!

 

[fansince62]

They are both about discriminating against a group of people because they are different, actually.

BS...this is the worst kind of slippery thinking.

disagree with Lanky and you are: a Nazi, racist or bigot. those are the telltale signs of an empty mind with no real argument.

The logic? Disagree with me and my value system and you are a morals criminal...all the while barely disguising your own contempt for anyone with a religiously founded belief system.

 

[fansince62]

There's a GD difference between accepting someone's sexual orientation/activities (i.e., going along with rampant moral relativism) and sanctifying those activities in the bond of marriage. that is one goal - as well as all the income issues. that the Dem Party/Left chose to champion this...like so much else they champion...in a cynical, craven press for power is another matter. and that is what they do...their actions are the bellweather: they love Blacks, gays, women...right up to the moment those same people think for themselves and express beliefs that run counter to the resplendent ideology. then, those people must be destroyed.

 

[Goaldeje]

I loved Boston Legal and always wondered what the diametrical opposite of Alan Shore was. Now I know.

Your problem, FS, when it comes to these debates, is that overriding, never ending, over expressed hatred of all things liberal makes debating you impossible. It also damages your credibility. I disagree with a lot that Sarge says, but at least he doesn't fall back on the same tired argument that all things liberal are inherently evil. Your position is impossible to debate. Anytime your thought process is shown to be at all faulty, you default back to liberals are evil and can not be trusted.

We get it. Anyone who disagrees has an empty mind. And must be evil. Possibly homosexual. Definitely stupid. Did I forget anything?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Alaskan]

BS...this is the worst kind of slippery thinking. but not surprising considering the source.

disagree with Lanky and you are: a Nazi, racist or bigot. those are the telltale signs of an empty mind with no real argument.

The logic? Disagree with me and my value system and you are a morals criminal...all the while barely disguising your own contempt for anyone with a religiously founded belief system.

The problem is when someone tries to force their belief system on someone else even when their beliefs don't hurt you.

The same logic that says "I don't believe in gay marriage, so gays shouldn't be allowed to marry" can also be used to say "I don't believe in eating meat so no one should be allowed to eat meat" or "I believe that all health insurance plans should have mental health coverage so everyone should be required to buy health insurance with mental health coverage" or a million other examples.

 

[fansince62]

I loved Boston Legal and always wondered what the diametrical opposite of Alan Shore was. Now I know.

Your problem, FS, when it comes to these debates, is that overriding, never ending, over expressed hatred of all things liberal makes debating you impossible. It also damages your credibility. I disagree with a lot that Sarge says, but at least he doesn't fall back on the same tired argument that all things liberal are inherently evil. Your position is impossible to debate. Anytime your thought process is shown to be at all faulty, you default back to liberals are evil and can not be trusted.

We get it. Anyone who disagrees has an empty mind. And must be evil. Possibly homosexual. Definitely stupid. Did I forget anything?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Goaldie...I like you...you're a decent, caring guy.

but you are missing a critical point: I'm not here to debate. I'm not here to win your approval.

but.....while we're at it......my attacks on the Left flow from their actions. the generalization grows out of...and does not precede...their actions.

I'll refrain from addressing the less than pure, unemotional allegiance to logic and fact that you and others sometimes substitute for argument.

logic and fact...organized thinking.....bahahahahahaha.

 

[Goaldeje]

My posts are emotional? I can buy that, actually. But go back and reread your posts. You know, where you talk about crazy people, craven people, etc? Kind of hard to acid emotion whetalking about this, I guess.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Ax]

With proper editing...

And Zoophilia.

zoophilia,

So can a woman and her dog.

This continued focus on the slippery slope toward bestiality is so ridiculous I shouldn’t even dignify it with a response.

The real slippery slope is not bestiality but in Michelle Obama telling us what beasts we should eat.

Again you are going back to a slippery slope argument, although thank god you seem to have dropped your obsession with beastiality.

Gee Wally, you've been a little more verbal to this point. Thanks for acknowledging my trying to move away from it.

I suppose they could if there was a mass upraising in support for bestiality and they could get it through the legislature and signed by the executive branch. Wake me up if that happens and I will lead the good fight against it.

Oooops!

This should be easy as you keep using the same argument over and over again that somehow letting gays get married is going to cause the people through their representatives to suddenly let Ax's neighbor marry his pet goat and then their little half human kids will get on your lawn (and probably eat it too since they are also half goats.)

So, as with the previous quote, when you have no constructive argument, you invent something that was never said, attach it to someone else, then use it to condescendingly paint a point of view you don't agree with, as ridiculous, from the safety of your perch, resting high above us mere mortals.

Impressive. Disingenuous, but impressive.

 

[fansince62]

My posts are emotional? I can buy that, actually. But go back and reread your posts. You know, where you talk about crazy people, craven people, etc? Kind of hard to acid emotion whetalking about this, I guess.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

there is no argument Goaldie. The time has long passed for that.

We've been inundated with 50 years+ of class warfare, racial, gender and sexual rhetoric. language has been twisted beyond recognition. core values and sustaining traditions have been obliterated under unrelenting assault. everything is relativized.

today...one stakes himself/herself/itself to a position and weathers the attack....and fights back. randomly aligned facts and emotive language is all that is left in the wake of this social/community/national destruction. I don't accept that it is a gentleman's debate - that was great for dorm room beer blasts. but the "debate" has passed on to a more serious plane and we are seeing the consequences. the time for talk is over.

now....if you want to talk Skins...let's hop over to Sons of and we can be civil and enjoy ourselves.

 

[fansince62]

btw...one last thought....there is a distinction between Dem/Libs as individuals...and the political expression of their will by their favored politicians.

 

[Alaskan]

With proper editing...





Gee Wally, you've been a little more verbal to this point. Thanks for acknowledging my trying to move away from it.

Oooops!


So, as with the previous quote, when you have no constructive argument, you invent something that was never said, attach it to someone else, then use it to condescendingly paint a point of view you don't agree with, as ridiculous, from the safety of your perch, resting high above us mere mortals.

Impressive. Disingenuous, but impressive.

Nope nothing disingenuous.

Your opinion in this thread are simple and clear:

Gays are abnormal
Legalizing gay marriage will lead to <insert Ax’s list of unusual sexual behaviors here>

No nuance, no attempt to acknowledge how gays might feel, not attempt to tie it to larger issues in our society and really nothing to say. Just another internet poster shouting his opinion over and over and then resorting to personal attacks when necessary.

You are nothing.

 

[Alaskan]

I would have hoped that there would be enough empathy on this board that people would be able to put themselves in the place of a gay person who is in a committed relationship and desperately wants to be treated like anyone else, to be able to say “I’m married” and to know that society accepts them. I would have hoped that even if you personally are disgusted by homosexual acts, even if you think it is a sin, even if you think they are abnormal, a mistake of nature, that you would be able to at least understand gays desire to be truly equal, not just in the practical benefits but in the symbols also. Did any of you ever think about how one of your fellow posters might feel if their son or daughter had come to them and said I’m gay and then they turn to this site and listen to someone equate their child’s sexual orientation to bestiality or to have someone arrogantly proclaim that their beliefs should take preference even though they are not hurt in any way by having gays married.

One may wonder why I’m passionate about this. There are two reasons, one personal the other political. On the personal side, my niece has been bouncing back and force between gay and straight relationships for several years. At the same time she is also having difficulty trying to figure out what to do with her life. Trying to figure yourself out and feeling different is not helped when society also pounds you with messages that you are different and somehow not acceptable.

On the political side, I believe the biggest most fundamental conflict in this country is not between Republicans and Democrats nor between liberals and conservatives (whatever that means) but between those who arrogantly think they are qualified to tell everyone how to live and those who believe that except for the most compelling reasons, the decisions of individuals should take preference. Behind, this desire to dictate how others are to live is a belief in their own superiority; that they are superior intellectually, morally, etc We see this played out in such items as what light blubs to use, health care, motorcycle helmets, you name it. What we call the left is very prone to this since it justifies the expansion of government. Their so called support of minorities is really what has been called “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Support borne of superiority. But the right is certainly not immune to this same attitude as they wish to force their moral and religious beliefs on others.

That’s how and why I feel the way I do. I look at every item with the question “should this be an individual or collective decision?” and the bar for collective decisions is very high indeed. Agree with me or disagree with me, call me a dick, I really don’t care. I realize that no one in the history of the internet has ever changed the opinion of anyone on a political topic. The only thing that gets changed is your opinion of the individuals involved. That certainly has been a eye opener for me.

I am now done on this and every other topic.

 

[Ax]

Your opinion in this thread are simple and clear:

Thanks. I try to be succinct, and to the point as often as I can.

Gays are abnormal

Correct. I admit that trying to come up with a word to describe how I feel that they aren't completely normal, without being hurtful to them, is damn near impossible. That's why, in one of my posts, I said I didn't mean it, in a mean way. I thought that would undoubtedly imply that I do realize it may sound mean, but that I wasn't trying to be mean.

Legalizing gay marriage will lead to <insert Ax’s list of unusual sexual behaviors here>

Absolutely, and completely false. A fabrication, by you, apparently done to try and make me and/or my position seem even more ridiculous than you already think it is. But, you figure, to be safe, you'll embellish my opinion to fit some asinine what if scenario that can be laughed at by all.

Check the record. Never, did I say that legitimizing homosexuals lifestyle, by giving them the opportunity to say "see, we're married, so that means we're normal" would lead to a damn thing. I simply said that the same arguments used to justify legitimizing homosexuality, could be used to try and justify the others. Not that it would, or should, or not. Just that it could.

I did not suggest anything close to a

"a mass upraising in support for bestiality " Post#89

Yet, you imply that I somehow believe it could happen.

I never said anything even remotely close to

"somehow letting gays get married is going to cause the people through their representatives to suddenly let Ax's neighbor marry his pet goat and then their little half human kids will get on your lawn (and probably eat it too since they are also half goats.)"Post#105

Yet, you you attach it to me, since anyone who actually thought that would have to be a frickin moron. Which, apparently, anyone who doesn't agree with you, needs to be, in order to make you and your opinions superior to everyone else. So naturally, I took that as a candy ass way of calling me a frickin moron. I chose the more direct route in my response.

No nuance, no attempt to acknowledge how gays might feel,

When the thread is, "How Do You Think Gays Might Feel" maybe I'll give it a whirl. It would be appropriate to do so in this one, but I haven't chosen to, as of yet. I wasn't aware that it was a requirement.

not attempt to tie it to larger issues in our society and really nothing to say.

I don't feel a need to tie my opinions to anything. I don't need to try and equate them to something as important as the the Civil Rights movement in hope of piggy backing them into something bigger or greater than they are. I'm not looking for anyone's approval here.

Just another internet poster shouting his opinion over and over and then resorting to personal attacks when necessary.

Greetings Mr. Pot, I'm Mr. Kettle.

You are nothing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're everything.

 

[Ax]

I would have hoped that there would be enough empathy on this board that people would be able to put themselves in the place of a gay person who is in a committed relationship and desperately wants to be treated like anyone else, to be able to say “I’m married” and to know that society accepts them.

I would have hoped there would be enough open mindedness on this board that people would be able to put themselves in the place of a straight person, whom for reasons of religion, or their belief in the natural order of things, that homosexuality is such an unimaginable flaw that it should not be thought of as acceptable, would be allowed to do so without being labeled bigots, homophobes, or idiots.

I would have hoped that even if you personally are disgusted by homosexual acts, even if you think it is a sin, even if you think they are abnormal, a mistake of nature, that you would be able to at least understand gays desire to be truly equal, not just in the practical benefits but in the symbols also.

I would have hoped that even if you personally find homosexual acts to be appealing, not the abomination the Bible says they are, that it is natural and normal, that you would at least be able to understand how someone else, does not, and thereby doesn't believe it should be symbolically acknowledged as such.

Did any of you ever think about how one of your fellow posters might feel if their son or daughter had come to them and said I’m gay and then they turn to this site and listen to someone equate their child’s sexual orientation to bestiality or to have someone arrogantly proclaim that their beliefs should take preference even though they are not hurt in any way by having gays married.

Well, life's a tough town. People have to deal with a host of problems that make homosexuality pale in comparison. And if someone can be so easily affected by some dimwit on a message board, then they have more of a problem than just being gay, or having a gay child.

One may wonder why I’m passionate about this. There are two reasons, one personal the other political. On the personal side, my niece has been bouncing back and force between gay and straight relationships for several years. At the same time she is also having difficulty trying to figure out what to do with her life. Trying to figure yourself out and feeling different is not helped when society also pounds you with messages that you are different and somehow not acceptable.

I figured as much. Not sure what other factors have led to your niece's troubles, but I wish her the best. During my meaningless, insignificant, nothing life, I've met quite a few, otherwise well adjusted homosexuals of both genders, who are comfortable with who they are, and don't give a hoot in hell what anybody else thinks. They navigate around that which they need to, and life goes on. So, I know it can be achieved, despite society. My advice to her would be, **** society. Make peace with yourself. But then what do I know? I'm nothing.

Behind, this desire to dictate how others are to live is a belief in their own superiority; that they are superior intellectually, morally, etc

I would submit that this is the desire and belief, on both sides of this fence. That's why each side pushes back like we do.

Agree with me or disagree with me, call me a dick, I really don’t care.

Me neither. But if you're gonna call me something, be man enough to just say it. Don't beat around the bush. I'm a big boy, I can take it.

I realize that no one in the history of the internet has ever changed the opinion of anyone on a political topic. The only thing that gets changed is your opinion of the individuals involved. That certainly has been a eye opener for me.

Total agreement here.

I am now done on this and every other topic.

I hope not. You can make a lot of interesting points that further the conversation.

 

[Goaldeje]

Finally, after 9 pages of back and forth, we get to the crux of the problem! Your post, Ax, illustrates the problem i have with this debate. It is, fundamentally, a religious debate. We should not allow religious beliefs to dictate public policy.

I've never understood why Christianity as a whole is so eager to reject and alienate an entire group of sinners. What makes their sin worse than the next?

Regardless, as Alaskan pointed out, why do we want religious groups instead of liberals to make public policy decisions for us?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Sarge]

Regardless, as Alaskan pointed out, why do we want religious groups instead of liberals to make public policy decisions for us?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

While we're all sinners, Christians as a whole try not to keep doing whatever sin is in question. Doesn't work sometimes, but you always strieve for it. Gays don't do that. They just keep on sinning with their behavior.

Also, I think we can all agree the Bible is a religious text. The Bible says homosexuality is an "abomination" and man shall not lay with man

That pretty much seals it as far as religion goes

 

[Goaldeje]

Yes Sarge. Having been raised in the Presbyterian Church (I think hat counts as a Christian for most denominations -maybe not Baptists), I am fairly familiar with what sin is and what is and is not constituted as a sin.

Why should we allow Christians to set policy? Why are their values more important than agnostics? For that matter, why more important than left-handed people (who happen to be gay)?

I still haven't seen an answer to that question. Nor have i heard why homosexuality is so much worse than any other sin. Hell, most of congress appears to be adulterers, why are we not witch-hunting them?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Sarge]

Why should we allow Christians to set policy? Why are their values more important than agnostics? Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Because gays seem insistant on using the term "Marriage", which is a religious term/ceremony. You want to be part of a church or participate in their ceremonies, you play by the rules. Being homsexual, you disqualify yourself right off the bat.

I've said before, I don't care if you are a pervert in your own home. I don't care if you want to have some legal arriangement to dispence with property and all that stuff. But I personally draw the line at gays trying to teach little kids in school that the lifestyle is "natural" and "normal", and allowing them to basically try to stick a finger in the eyes of millions of religious folks by having the government mandate gays can use the church to get "married"

Funny, liberals wanst separation of church and state as far as religion being in schools, but now they are trying to say it's OK for the government to mandate to churches what they can an cannot do

Hypocracy at it's best

 

[Alaskan]

Just want to discuss one of Ax’s points before I head out.

Absolutely, and completely false. A fabrication, by you, apparently done to try and make me and/or my position seem even more ridiculous than you already think it is. But, you figure, to be safe, you'll embellish my opinion to fit some asinine what if scenario that can be laughed at by all.

Check the record. Never, did I say that legitimizing homosexuals lifestyle, by giving them the opportunity to say "see, we're married, so that means we're normal" would lead to a damn thing. I simply said that the same arguments used to justify legitimizing homosexuality, could be used to try and justify the others. Not that it would, or should, or not. Just that it could.

You are correct that you said that the same arguments could be used to justify any number of deviant or unusual behaviors or justify different marriage relationships.

So I responded to it in a serious manner.

The argument that legalizing gay marriages would lead to legalizing Polygamy, pedophilia, zoophilia, and incest and any number of sexual deviants is fallacious. If the law outlaws one of these acts for all people, there is no discrimination and therefore no violation of civil rights. The fact is that society has a compelling interest in outlawing all of the above for all people.

Although you responded to the post that was in, you simply ignored that point.

I also said this in a response to Mike:

And Ax is wrong on Polygamy. If the law said that one man and many woman polygamy was legal but one woman and many men was not, that would be discrimination and would violate the 14th amendment. But if it was outlawed for everyone, there is no discrimination. Plus you can make a compelling argument that society has a compelling interest in outlawing polygamy because polygamy results in large numbers of males without mates (speaking of one man and women polygamy) and such a situation is not good for society.

Again no response. But Ax again went to the well again with this:

Now, a question for you.

If same sex marriage becomes a legal and acceptable lifestyle, then why shouldn't incest, or polygamy, since the choice to do so would also be made by consenting adults? What are their rights?

So I responded, again in a serious manner.

Again you are going back to a slippery slope argument, although thank god you seem to have dropped your obsession with beastiality. I actually dealt with polygamy already. But I will do so again.

In nature many species engage in polygamy. Only the biggest and strongest males get to reproduce. This ensures that those characteristics are passed down ensuring the survival of the species. Polygamy in the animal world also tends to occur in species where the male is not involved in child rearing. Humans evolved differently. Physically we are a relatively weak creature, slow and not very strong. Our survival in nature depended on intelligence and cooperation within the group.

Newborns have a relatively large brain compared to their body and their bodies are virtually helpless. That’s because during gestation, most of biological activity is dedicated to brain development. So it takes many years for children to develop physically and survive on their own. So in humans it is normal for the children of multiple pregnancies to still be dependent upon their parents. You don’t really see this in the animal world. One off spring is typically fully independent before another arrives.

Because of this, both parents are needed to raise children and survival of humans depended upon cooperation within a group. Both of these created a situation where monogamy help the survival of the species because it created an incentive for males to stick around.

Now consider a tribe that consisted of one dominate male and many females. That tribe would not survive because without the cooperation of other males, they couldn’t successful hunt the larger and faster game they depended on.

So that’s how we got to where we are today. But does that still apply today or would polygamy be workable in today’s society. If you have paid attention to some of the polygamist Mormon outliner societies, they drive away young competing males and older females. Done on a large scale, it would result in a large number of young males without mates in stable relationships. This is not good for society as we have seen already even without polygamy. So society has a compelling interest in not providing the benefits of marriage to such relationship.

In the case of incest, there is the presumption that there may be children and reproduction between close relatives increases the chance of passing on genetic deceases. Thus again, society has a compelling interest in not providing marriage benefits to such relationships.

On the other hand, since gays exist because they are wired differently (or as you said abnormal), it is societies interest to encourage gays to engage in stable, committed relationships. Heterosexual males who are in committed, stable relationships are healthier, happier and more productive than single males who are not in a committed relationship. I would suspect that the same is true for gay males.

Again no response to this argument except to say there was a lot to talk about. But you did manage to bring up the same point in a response to Lanky

Same sex marriage used to be illegal for EVERYONE too. That's my point. If that law can be challenged and changed, then why not the others?

First off, you are the one "comparing" one to the other. I say each one is completely different from the other. But that, if one is allowed, any one of them, then the same arguments used to justify that one, would HAVE to be used to justify the others. I don't see any way around that.

So I again responded by pointing out the difference and pointing out that trying to use the state to control individual moriality is just another form of nannystaeism. (new word?)

I suppose they could if there was a mass upraising in support for bestiality and they could get it through the legislature and signed by the executive branch. Wake me up if that happens and I will lead the good fight against it. But that could only happen via the legislative process since they couldn’t use the courts to override the legislative restrictions since the 14th amendment is limited to “persons” and it outlaws unequal treatment under the law. The only way I could them using the courts would be through a right to privacy (i.e. via Roe verses Wade which was a bad legal opinion anyway.) Even so, the compelling state interest would trump the right to privacy.

The civil rights comparison is very applicable here. Unequal treatment of blacks was justified based upon dubious science, irrational fear or because that was the way it always had been. In reality, individuals wanted the heavy handed force of the government to support their personal bigotry. There was in fact no compelling interest in the government forcing blacks to drink from a separate foundation or to ride in the back of the bus but it was codified in the law and supported by many people using some of the exact same arguments you have heard in this thread.

One thing this thread has proved is that there are a lot of people who really like a nanny state, collectivist government when that government supports their own beliefs. Lot of faux conservatives running around here. But those same arguments can be used to interfere with your rights later on. Maybe putting away your prejudices and developing some intellectual consistency might be a good thing.

Although you continued to post in the thread and managed to accuse me of being obsessed with the animal issue, when you were the one that keeps bring it up, you never countered my refutation of your slippery slope argument, you simply repeated it getting more and more personal.

At that point I (rightly) concluded that your only basis for opposing gay marriage (like Elephant) is your personal religious beliefs and the desire to impose them on others even though you are not really hurt by gays getting married. Furthermore, since you were unable to do anything other than repeating the same argument over and over all the while running away from the points I made, I also came to the conclusion that you were a one trick pony and not someone interested or capable of serious debate.

Good day, sir.