Gay Marriage

Quote: boymimbo

Leave it to the various religious authorities to push "marriage between a man and woman" and keep the state out of it.

Ah, but how long until *they* get sued for "discrimination?" We already have been told that you cannot decline to bid on work on a gay wedding because you do not want to work at one. Next logical thing is some gays somewhere will say that the church is a "public accommodation" and that a priest has "no right" to turn down such a wedding.

The entire way the gay movement has used the courts and not the ballot box or legislature to get their way. To think they will not do it again is absurd. To think that there would not be some activist judge who would rule for them is fooling oneself.

Quote: boymimbo

First...in most places, grounds for annulment is not being of sound mind.

First, I love how you rely on existing law when it comes to 'annulment', yet you want to change existing law when it comes to 'marriage'. Unfortunately, you can't just pick and choose which laws you want to follow! (I've come to expect these types of inconsistencies from the LGBTQQIP2SAA crowd though)

Quote: boymimbo

The point is that for the same reason you can't marry a 13 year old, you can't marry a dog (or any other animal, for that matter), and you can't marry an object (including a computer).

The point is that you don't support changing the law in the above cases, yet you do support changing the law to benefit gays and ONLY gays. Sounds like you support discrimination as long as it doesn't involve gays.

Quote: boymimbo

We can get into the slippery slope of polygamy, but once again, the STATE definition of marriage (not the church's) to me should be "the entity who is given the various rights and benefits of being one's partner". There is no reason why that shouldn't exclude man-computer.

Fixed!

Quote: boymimbo

Is America so weak that 4% can take down the other 96%?

It's 2-3%...not 4%. In any case, that 2-3% has unfortunately brainwashed over half of the 96%.

Face, thanks for taking the time to respond; I appreciate your thoughts.

Quote: Face

As much as I hate to admit it, yeah, gays do have equal rights.

But that's not true. You can still be arrested and imprisoned for being gay.

Even in 2014, it's illegal for gays to have sex with each other in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. (FYI, Louisiana has no laws prohibiting sexual relations with a corpse. Not sure how that works if the corpse and the living are of the same sex. That would be gross.)

Apologists for the sodomy laws argue that fellatio is illegal for heterosexuals, too, not just gays. See? Equal rights! Everyone's being treated equally. To allow gays to have fellatio would be asking for special rights. Cunnilingus is illegal for everyone, not just lesbians. Lesbians shouldn't get special rights.

Quote: Face

As the right always says, they're free to marry anyone of the opposite sex they want.

Back before the liberal activist justices on the Supreme Court overturned Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states. Apologists for this racist law argued that blacks and whites had equal rights. Whites could marry any white they wanted. Blacks could marry any black that they wanted. See? Equal rights! Blacks weren't being discriminated against. And whites weren't being discriminated against. The law applied to everyone, equally.

A gay man can marry any woman he chooses. A lesbian can marry any man she chooses. See? Equal rights! Just don't demand to marry someone you actually fall in love with.

Quote: Face

They do want special rights, by definition.

So prior to 1967, blacks who fell in love with whites wanted special rights not recognized by the law. And whites who fell in love with blacks wanted special rights not recognized by the law. No one should get special rights. The law shall apply to everyone equally.

Quote: Face

He thinks (and correct me if I'm wrong, AZD) that it's not the stable family foundation that a hetero couple supplies.

Let's hear Virginia's assistant attorney general in 1967 explain how interracial marriage screws up children:

Quote: R. D. McIlwaine III

"It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent."

Well put.

Quote: AZDuffman

Thanks again for the kind words, and I am glad to hear that while I may not have convinced you to my side I at least played a part in moving your reasoning from emotional to logical. I used to think on issues more emotionally, but I find that it is true that an emotional argument is simply a weak one.

There is so much to this right here.

On a personal level, my dealings with you have totally changed who I am in real life. I know most aren't aware because I always entered "professional mode" while at WoV, but when I came there I had a deep red streak. I've always had a thread of angry emotion running inside of me. And like I said, I suppose if anyone said they were anti gay movement, I jumped right to assuming they were a hateful bigot and got angry about it. But you're right. That's the emotional side poking through, and that usually obscures the point.

I also think that's where this comes in...

Quote: boymimbo

On another note, I really don't like how this forum (and in particular, this thread) is denigrating to the sniping back and forths that existed over at WoV. I really, really enjoyed the modicum of behaviour that is going on over here and am a little bit sad to see things go a bit downhill.

Beethoven, I know you can debate as good as any. And I totally get your point presented in this thread. But it feels like... everyone's talking passed each other, or something. For instance, I have no problem with gay marriage. I've supported it for my entire history of WoV. But I can still admit where I was wrong, or that you make a point. Specifically, the "equal rights" thing. I can look at it rationally and by definition and say "you're right, that is sort of a 'special rights' thing they're asking for". But the thing is, having dealt with boymimbo and TheCessPit and others on the liberal side, I would think that they, too, would say the same thing that I did. But even if they don't, who cares? You Are Right. Technically, it is a special right. It doesn't change their stance, but the Right is correct in their assessment.

So why belabor the point? To be completely honest and direct, the style of this debate reminds me exactly of s2dbaker in the gun debate. I know s2d is intelligent and can put together very good arguments, but there he kept posting little snipes that eroded his legitimacy and only served to encourage emotional reactions. It did nothing for his side, nothing for his cause. It just riled those who held views opposing his. There, he brought up victims of accidents, a good point. But that turned into months of posts and snide comments about another "2nd amendment hero", who was always a child killed by an errant bullet. Here, you made a point about the word games that are being played by the left. But it's turning into the same sort of silliness that you're lamenting.

Perhaps the riling of the opposition is something he took as a "win". Perhaps you're doing the same, I don't know. But I hope we can all go forward with a little honesty, and not ruin the pleasant atmosphere that has dominated this place since its inception.

We've had the heavy righties in AZD and EB and the heavy lefties in TheCessPit and Boymimbo here since the beginning, and still this place has only known harmony. Let's all try to preserve it.

Quote: reno

Face, thanks for taking the time to respond; I appreciate your thoughts.

You're welcome

Quote: reno

But that's not true. You can still be arrested and imprisoned for being gay.

Even in 2014, it's illegal for gays to have sex with each other in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah. (FYI, Louisiana has no laws prohibiting sexual relations with a corpse. Not sure how that works if the corpse and the living are of the same sex. That would be gross.)

Apologists for the sodomy laws argue that fellatio is illegal for heterosexuals, too, not just gays. See? Equal rights! Everyone's being treated equally. To allow gays to have fellatio would be asking for special rights. Cunnilingus is illegal for everyone, not just lesbians. Lesbians shouldn't get special rights.

To be honest, I'm not very learned on the legal side of things. This isn't a debate I've delved deep into law about. So I'd have to ask - are these laws actually enforced? Or is it like the "you can't have a horse in your kitchen on a Sunday" laws that were put on the books in the 1800s and forgot about?

Quote: reno

Back before the liberal activist justices on the Supreme Court overturned Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states. Apologists for this racist law argued that blacks and whites had equal rights. Whites could marry any white they wanted. Blacks could marry any black that they wanted. See? Equal rights! Blacks weren't being discriminated against. And whites weren't being discriminated against. The law applied to everyone, equally.

A gay man can marry any woman he chooses. A lesbian can marry any man she chooses. See? Equal rights! Just don't demand to marry someone you actually fall in love with.

So prior to 1967, blacks who fell in love with whites wanted special rights not recognized by the law. And whites who fell in love with blacks wanted special rights not recognized by the law. No one should get special rights. The law shall apply to everyone equally.

Let's hear Virginia's assistant attorney general in 1967 explain how interracial marriage screws up children.

To be clear, again, I'm not saying that I think the Right is right. I guess I'm looking at it from a purely technical standpoint. Not from a human standpoint, or a common layman one, but a purely legal technical standpoint. And yes, looking at it from there, I find it hard to say that the current situation isn't equal. I know what you're saying, and I AGREE with you. But the right to marry the opposite sex is granted to all persons, gay or straight. That is equal. For gays to wish the right to marry someone of same sex, they are asking for an additional right, a special right. If we're talking technical speak, I can't look at it any other way.

Of course, as I said, I'm all for giving it to them. Why should we straights be the only victims of the horror that is marriage? ;) But I think here is the problem when we have these talks, and what I said I learned from AZD. It's OK to think this way. I understand all your points you made about the unfairness. Not only understand, but I'm in lock step agreement with you. My thought that it is a "special right" does not change my stance. It's just me being honest with what's been presented. And I think too many get caught up in the word games, which is exactly what this is, and it detracts from the issue at hand. Gays want special rights, JUST AS interracial couples wanted what was at one time a special right. So what's the big deal? Surrendering that point does not weaken you or the cause whatsoever. It simply gets an idiotic roadblock out of the way and allows you to work on the actual problem without distraction.

Or, we could just sit here and argue definitions of words and the technicalities of their meanings. Which one do you think is more helpful to the cause?

Quote: Face

But it's turning into the same sort of silliness that you're lamenting.

First, the only reason I keep talking about "word games" is because I'm being engaged by people who keep asking about it.

But I don't get it, this thread was moving along just fine, and there was no "sniping" at all until one guy chimed in with an unsolicited post & started using words like "troll". How come you didn't mention that??? He's the same guy that you said I was "right back at" when I had returned to WoV, yet you hadn't mentioned that he did the same thing back then as he's doing now. He initiates a conversation, throws in provocative words like "troll".......yet I get blamed?? Very annoying. Like I said before, everything was going along just fine here until the chimer chimed in.

*For the record, I have no problem with unsolicited posts, and I don't even have a problem with people who continually whine about others instead of simply blocking them. But I do have a problem when people start blaming the guy's target while ignoring his initial post.

Quote: Face

So I'd have to ask - are these laws actually enforced?

In Louisiana, the East Baton Rouge parish acknowledges that there were 10 arrests in the past 2 years. That's just 1 parish in 1 state, it doesn't include the rest of Louisiana or Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

I concede that these arrests are rare. But if they're so rare, that's all the more reason for the politicians to repeal the laws, which the politicians still won't do, despite the US Supreme Court's ruling. Even 1 arrest for private adult consensual activity is a waste of police manpower and tax dollars.

Apparently politicians really, really hate blowjobs.

Quote: reno

Let's hear Virginia's assistant attorney general in 1967 explain how interracial marriage screws up children:

You can call it racist all you want, but the statement of the AG was in fact correct. Even today interracial children are often shunned by "pure" children. But ironically, it is not "racist whites" doing it but members of the minority race. Blacks will shun half black/half whites saying they "aren't black enough." Koreans or Japanese are even worse. Jews have always had problems when they even date Gentiles.

And this is in 2014. Back in 1967, well "Mad Men" just scratches the surface of what went on. Now, the law might have been behind the times and needed to be changed in 1967, but the statement that life will be hard on the kids was correct and probably well-intentioned.

One more thing on the comparing bans on inter-racial marriage to gay marriage. It is important to note that bans on inter-racial marriage were 100% of the time a positive action, "positive" meaning the legislature took action to enact the ban. Until recently, denial of "gay marriage" was a negative ban. Meaning the legislature didn't make such a law because there was no need for such a law, it was understood that marriage was one man and one woman. For this reason alone you cannot compare one to the other.

Quote: AZDuffman

...there was no need for such a law, it was understood that marriage was one man and one woman. For this reason alone you cannot compare one to the other.

+10

As usual, AZ is right on the money.

I might add that Loving v. Virginia was all about interracial marriage between OPPOSITE sexes, not the same sex. If anybody can point to any part of that decision which references interracial marriage between people of the SAME sex, then I'm all ears. (But that ain't gonna happen because nobody in that case supported interracial gay marriage at all)

I don't believe homosexuality is a choice so the premise of tradition which relies on the foundation of ignorance believing it is, cannot be continued now we know better.
Maybe the individual can continue on being ignorant suffering the consequences, but government has a higher level of responsibility to the people.