Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Best argument against gay marriage I've seen yet.

LGBT Same sex Marriage

  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#21 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 09:41 PM

^^^  Like I said I favor the American constitution. What is more I do not find the courts to be acting radically, when they take judicious time to explore if or if not a minority has a given right. So yes I believe in the process. The process: that you are trying to circumvent, just because you dont find the courts marching lock step with you.

I would also point out that the courts know the history of the Gay civil rights movement and the Wall riots in New York City. So the courts know, that however slight, there is the danger of civil unrest if the injunctions you want are issued, without due diligence.

Sparky::

Edited by emsparks, 29 February 2004 - 09:55 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#22 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 09:54 PM

I always love the "So you're clearly against this concept, which I'm pulling out of absolutely nowhere" argument strategy.

So I'm clearly against the concept of language, because I don't like seeing it being used to twist others' words? Yeah, that's gotta be it.

Try again. And try harder.

:cool:
Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#23 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 10:59 PM

emsparks, on Feb 29 2004, 08:18 PM, said:

Given the stigma there are damm few people in this country that will express support of the homosexual community to a stranger.
BoguS. You know perfectly &@#$% well that the reall pressure is exactly the opposite way, with the homosexual activist people constantly badmouthing their opponents from everywhere while their opponents almost always just clam up and take it without returning fire.

#24 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 11:03 PM

True Delvo. I know the rule is when someones disagrees gets labeled a homophobe.  Which means having to figth with a PC label stuck on his side.

#25 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 11:11 PM

emsparks, on Feb 29 2004, 07:34 PM, said:

But here is a few words and concept that turn that diatribe to the garbage it is
In fact they do no such thing, and some are so far "out there" that I can't even see how you thought they possibly could...

Quote

1. Human parthenogenesis
Practically non-existent, but what does it have to do with anything anyway? Nothing at all.

Quote

2. Multiple wives sanctioned by the bible.
It is unfortunate for the case against Humptydumptyism to be so tied in with the Bible by many Christians; this just taints the case of their own allies with a stain not of their making, which is nevertheless a big target for their opponents. The Bible is full of nonsense, along with some good ideas. I can even think of a possible justification for this one anyway depending on the circumstances (it's better than nothing if and when the population happens to be short on males), but it doesn't matter. The real question isn't who advocates an idea or how long ago the idea was first written down, but how good the idea's effects would be.

Quote

3. Oxitocen (sp)
What in the world is this supposed to have to do with anything?

Quote

4. The divorce rate is now over 50%
Actually, the first-marriage divorce rate isn't; that stat, even if it were true (it's usually reported slightly less than that), would be greatly inflated by serial divorcers. And yet, it is true that the divorce rate, even the first-marriage divorce rate, is higher than it should be. But again, how is that supposed to reveal that the "diatribe" is "garbage"? He said himself in the article you seem to think you're refuting that family structure is under attack; this only shows that the attacks have had some degree of success. How does that justify attacking it even more, and how does a demonstration of one of the author's own main points go against his own article?

Quote

5. Honor killings, prisons in many countries...
Again, that has nothing to do with anything close to what we're talking about here. Why do you bring up irrelevancies that have no connection whatsoever to the subject at hand? Trying to confuse and distract the enemy?

Quote

5. In many countries all a man has to do to divorce his wife, is go out in public and say that he has divorced her.
Holy halibuts, see the first #5... and #3... and #2... and #1... Even if the wives didn't have the same right, that would still not matter at all to what we're talking about... AGAIN.

Edited by Delvo, 01 March 2004 - 01:54 AM.


#26 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 11:31 PM

The article is too long-winded, and it does bring up some stuff that doesn't matter and is too easy to dismiss as wrong and/or biased.

For example, the thing about homosexuality being caused by factors other than genetics; well of course it isn't just that and some other stuff during life affects it, but so what? That doesn't make it a choice, which it so obviously isn't that you'd think those against homosexual "marriage" would avoid the subject because they can only make themselves look like fools by mentioning the obviously bogus notion that homosexuality could ever be chosen.

Also, there is the example that has several responses above, about the "right" to marriage being available to homosexuals. It's true, but it's a bad way to get at the point about marriage as a "right" because it's too indirect and too easy to think of as just sounding absurd, thus making the speaker a target for saying it without having gotten anywhere in the debate.

The real point about marriage as a "right" is simply that it isn't one. For all that the homosexual activist crowd talks about love and the happiness of the couple, marriage isn't about what the two people involved want, and it isn't about love. It's not even about the relationship between the two of them in any way. That wasn't even much of a consideration in it for much of history. It's about their (and their kids', if and when they have them) joint relationship to everybody else, which is all that the government recognizes and deals with. That doesn't mean that any other kind of personal relationship is inferior or wrong or banned, it just means that it's not the same thing as a marriage, and thus not something for government to pay attention to because it has no external consequences or relevance. The government institution of marriage isn't a personal relationship so much as a business one, and business regulation is something we all know government is supposed to do, while personal relationship meddling is not.

Edited by Delvo, 01 March 2004 - 01:57 AM.


#27 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 29 February 2004 - 11:33 PM

LORD of the SWORD said:

So then you're against democracy? Your reference to "tyranny of the majority" indicates that...at least that's the way it came across to me...

So, what do you propose? A Tyranny of the minority? What? The minority gets out voted, cries discrimination, bitches and moans until they get their way?

I'm against "tyrannies" in general.  Some people are decrying the system and throwing around new buzzwords like "activist judges" :rolleyes:.  Others feel that the system is working exactly as it's supposed to.  I'm one of the latter.  This is just another one of the checks and balances in our republic.  When this case finally hits the supreme courts of other states and hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court--and if they rule in favor of gay marriages, then the court's saying that the constitution doesn't give the government any right to deny marriage to same-gender couples.

The Judiciary is keeping the other two branches in check.  If they rule in such a way that enough people don't like it, then there's the amendment process to force the issue.  And it's difficult to pull off, by design.

Now, as to why I think all of this is a good thing:  opinion on gay marriages is pretty evenly divided.  Proposition 22 passed with 61% of the vote, four years ago.  If that ballot were going around now instead, I doubt it would get as much since the issue has polarized public opinion a lot more in recent years.  So, we're at a standstill.  It's a political hot-potato and the legislatures don't want to touch it with a 20 foot poll.

This is just one of those issues where I feel the minority has been discriminated against by the majority, so putting it to a vote isn't the answer.

G1223 said:

So you favor the courts forcing a social experiment with out the consent to people. Becasue they are silly and foolish prone to making these choices based on their own prejustices.

No, I favor the courts doing their jobs and interpreting the compatibility of contested laws to the Constitutions of the states and federal government.  Prejudices are exactly what this whole argument is about.  Sure the courts do some wacky things every now and again, but there's nothing silly or foolish about some of the landmark cases of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quote

I always love the "So you're clearly against this concept, which I'm pulling out of absolutely nowhere" argument strategy.

So I'm clearly against the concept of language, because I don't like seeing it being used to twist others' words? Yeah, that's gotta be it.

Try again. And try harder.

:lol:

:cool:

-Nick

#28 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 12:56 AM

ArmourMe, on Feb 29 2004, 02:52 PM, said:

Nick, on Feb 29 2004, 10:30 PM, said:

Although, I understand his outrage that this is being decided by the courts and not the democratic process . . . but I personally feel the system was meant to work the way it is in cases like this--keeping a tyranny of the majority in check.

-Nick
Thanks for saying that so well, Nick :)  Most minorities trying to get equal rights would still be waiting if popular vote were the only way to get those rights.
What these two said is also my response to those who naively believe that the popular vote is the way to get ANYTHING done on the civil rights front.

Please.   :rolleyes:
Posted Image

#29 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 01:07 AM

imzzadi, on Feb 29 2004, 06:08 PM, said:

Handmaiden07, on Feb 29 2004, 07:00 PM, said:

The argument that marriage between a man and a woman are fundamentally a part of the building blocks of society, and that anyone who wishes to engage in that act is free to is a valid one.  The sociological argument starts from that point - NOT from the point that people are free to marry heterosexually even though they are homosexual - the argument is about the function of marriage in the larger society - as opposed to its "feel good" aspects to the two people involved.  I find it a very compelling argument.

HM07
It's nice to know that as a single woman who plans to stay that way I'm not functioning effectively in the society.  Great to know that K and R, who are active in local education campaigns, charities and are foster parents, are undermining the building blocks of society.  Oh wait, that must just be American society.  My province has made gay marriage legal.  Colour me proud to be Canadian.
It's nice to know that you are reading into my words things I never said or implied.

Being a good citizen also involves voting - a right everyone has.  Some people choose not to - that's also their right.  Sometimes its a conscientious choice.  That TOO is thier right.

Saying that heterosexual marriage is foundational to the society is not the same as saying that single people are not functionine effectively in the society.  I stated that the argument was compelling from a sociological point of view - the one point of view I have yet to see anyone tackle - and it's the one that seemed to dominate the article, in my opinon. Its the one which gave context to the otherwise absurd statement that gays can marry just as well as heterosexuals.  It was not a statement of thier preferences or choices - but a statement of the function of the institution of marriage in society.  If anyone wants to argue about what the function of marriage is in the society - then fine - that's an argument that answers what I said.  All else... isn't.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#30 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 01:36 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Feb 29 2004, 09:17 PM, said:

Quote

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

I've already stated my opinion of how disengenuous and absurd I find this argument to be.

I've always admired Orson Scott Card.  It's very disappointing to see him advancing such an intellectually dishonest argument as a smoke screen for supporting bigotry.
I've never read anything that Card wrote, although I did pick up one of his books, which is in my "pile of stuff to read". I was shocked when I read that tired old argument once again - that any gay man is still free to marry - as long as he marries a woman. What absolute rhetoric!  Is this the world of Henry Ford - can't I get a car in any color I want, as long as the color I want is "black"?

I don't have time right now to read the rest of his article - hopefully I'll try to read it on the train ride home.

#31 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 03:14 PM

Handmaiden07, on Mar 1 2004, 06:05 AM, said:

Saying that heterosexual marriage is foundational to the society is not the same as saying that single people are not functionine effectively in the society.  I stated that the argument was compelling from a sociological point of view - the one point of view I have yet to see anyone tackle - and it's the one that seemed to dominate the article, in my opinon. Its the one which gave context to the otherwise absurd statement that gays can marry just as well as heterosexuals.  It was not a statement of thier preferences or choices - but a statement of the function of the institution of marriage in society.  If anyone wants to argue about what the function of marriage is in the society - then fine - that's an argument that answers what I said.  All else... isn't.

HM07
I know that I'm not the person who replied before, but let me jump in here. Do you see that you just proved the point against which you're arguing? If a single person can function effectively in the society, then I don't believe you can argue that a gay married couple can't function effectively in society.

Marriage is about with whom we choose to spend our lives and our time - with whom we want to raise children (Rosie and her wife already have 4 children - they'd raise them whether they were married or not).

From a legal standpoint, marriage is about who we are allowed to claim on our insurance at work; who is able to make our medical decisions when we can't speak for ourselves; who is allowed to be buried with us for all eternity. After we buried my mother, my father found out that it's Massachusetts law that a husband can't be forbidden from being buried with his wife. I have several gay friends and I'd like to think that they should get the same benefit to be with the one they love that my father enjoyed.

These gay friends function perfectly well in society - they work in business, in teaching, in being a nanny, in running a bed-and-breakfast, etc. They're going to be with their "partner" whether or not we call them their "spouse".

#32 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 04:23 PM

Broph, just like the last person who argued with HM in here, you're arguing against an assertion that neither she nor anybody else has made.

The homosexual activists keep throwing up so many straw men there's no room left in the field for the grain.

#33 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 05:45 PM

Delvo, on Mar 1 2004, 09:21 PM, said:

Broph, just like the last person who argued with HM in here, you're arguing against an assertion that neither she nor anybody else has made.

The homosexual activists keep throwing up so many straw men there's no room left in the field for the grain.
I beg to differ. She mentioned couples and how they interact with society. Well, when you get right down to it, we really only interact with society as individuals. The whole idea of marriage is how one person interacts with another person. As far as I can see, nobody yet has given a real argument as to why there can't be same-sex marriages, other than "it's what God wants" (as if we know what God wants), or "that's how it's always been" (gee - like how we had slavery for thousands of years?).

BTW, your comment on "homosexual activists" - I happen to be heterosexual, thank you.

#34 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 05:59 PM

The article is speaking about a sexually-dimorphic species (us) long evolved to contribute differently to the world.  Men are men, and women are women.  Even when men are gay, they are still men, and women who are gay are still women.  The article advances the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, because that combination is what's most appropos for human children.  Before anyone says anything about foster parents and gay parents - I'm not talking about alternative arrangements.  Yes - there are alternative arrangements.  Yes they can work.  I'm a new divorcee - creating an arrangement with my ex, for the wellbeing of our child.  It's an alternative arrangement.  It is, nonetheless, not ideal.

The article is talking about the problem of CALLING something marriage that doesn't meet the criteria of marriage and fulfill all that marriage does IN SOCIETY.  Again - this isn't talking about people's feelings for each other.  This is talking about the most efficient, most successful model for society.  And it's rejecting the notion that calling alternative arrangements by the same name as the arrangements that have been agreed upon by human society for the whole of our existence is not harmful.  It is pointing out that the very fact that an inferior arrangement (and yes, I'm calling it that, because it is.  That doesn't mean it can't work, or even work well.  It doesn't mean that people who are in the prescribed configuration are going to be successful, because they might not.  It's just stating the fact that a man and a woman each contribute something different to a relationship that is necessary for the wellbeing of a child) by the same name as the superior arrangement - harms the superior arrangement BECAUSE it fails to make the necessary distinction.

And for the record - one of the necessary distinctions is the awareness that it IS a different arrangement that needs a lot of support and attention, in order to be successful.

That's the sociological argument being made, at least as I see it.  

HM07

Edited by Handmaiden07, 01 March 2004 - 06:08 PM.

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#35 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 06:10 PM

Handmaiden07, on Mar 1 2004, 05:57 PM, said:

Before anyone says anything about foster parents and gay parents - I'm not talking about alternative arrangements.  Yes - there are alternative arrangements.  Yes they can work.  I'm a new divorcee - creating an arrangement with my ex, for the wellbeing of our child.  It's an alternative arrangement.  It is, nonetheless, not ideal.

There is no such thing as ideal.  Also, there is no evidence to suggest that gay parents have any negative effect on their kids at all.  They turn out to be just as well-adjusted (or maladjusted) as kids with straight parents.


Quote

The article is talking about the problem of CALLING something marriage that doesn't meet the criteria of marriage and fulfill all that marriage does IN SOCIETY.  Again - this isn't talking about people's feelings for each other.  This is talking about the most efficient, most successful model for society.  And it's rejecting the notion that calling alternative arrangements by the same name as the arrangements that have been agreed upon by human society for the whole of our existence is not harmful.  It is pointing out that the very fact that an inferior arrangement (and yes, I'm calling it that, because it is.  That doesn't mean it can't work, or even work well.  It doesn't mean that people who are in the prescribed configuration are going to be successful, because they might not.  It's just stating the fact that a man and a woman each contribute something different to a relationship that is necessary for the wellbeing of a child) by the same name as the superior arrangement - harms the superior arrangement BECAUSE it fails to make the necessary distinction.

And for the record - one of the necessary distinctions is the awareness that it IS a different arrangement that needs a lof of support and attention, in order to be successful.

That's the sociological argument being made, at least as I see it. 

HM07

That may be the argument being made, but what evidence is used to support it?  There have never been gay marriages, so how can it be said that it's an inferior arrangement?  It's an argument based on preconceptions, and not on facts.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#36 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,300 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 06:13 PM

Long accepted principle that kids need their mothers.  New research shows, that kids need their FATHERS too.  It's referenced in the article, and I've read stuff about this as well.  But I don't have links, nor time to find them.  If this discussion is still going on when I can look it up, I will.

HM07

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#37 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 06:36 PM

Broph, on Mar 1 2004, 04:43 PM, said:

The whole idea of marriage is how one person interacts with another person.
That corruption and misrepresentation of the concept is exactly the problem the article is talking about. IF IT WERE just a personal relationship between two people, there'd never have been any reason for the government to involve itself at all, just like it's never involved itself in the relationships between friends, or between siblings, or between idols and their idolizers. The fact that marriage is NOT an interpersonal relationship is the entire REASON why it's ever been a governmental issue at all.

Quote

As far as I can see, nobody yet has given a real argument as to why there can't be same-sex marriages, other than "it's what God wants" (as if we know what God wants), or "that's how it's always been" (gee - like how we had slavery for thousands of years?).
Then quit closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and singing every time somebody does it.

Quote

BTW, your comment on "homosexual activists" - I happen to be heterosexual, thank you.
Ya, I never intended that phrase to call all such people homosexuals, just activists of the subject of homosexuals and homosexuality. Maybe "homosexuality activists" would be better? The problem is that as soon as anybody uses the phrase "gay rights activists", (s)he's playing right into that group's silly pretense that it's about civil rights at all, which is already ceding half the argument to them before we even begin, and doing it invalidly.

Edited by Delvo, 01 March 2004 - 06:46 PM.


#38 GenesisII

GenesisII

    .

  • Islander
  • 600 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 06:43 PM

All I'm going to say is I am glad I had a Dad and Mom. Both parents had there places in my life and I looked to each for what I require as a child. There are things which a child needs from a Dad and other things they need from a Mom. Our parents had there disagreements but we knew they were in the marriage for life and we knew they cared about us. In my young years, they made us feel safe. I'm sure I would have missed one or the other had they not been there. My experience was that a marriage between man and women was a fulfilling childhood.

My opinion is that male/female marriages are very much healthier than same sex.

JMHO

#39 Gaiate

Gaiate

    Spirit Blade

  • Islander
  • 1,003 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 06:55 PM

But my point is, how do you know that a same sex marriage is worse than an opposite sex one?  Your experience was good growing up.  That's great, so was mine, but it has no bearing on the validity of homosexual marriage.

--Te
"This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis--vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." -- V, making an first impression

"Dude . . . that was cool." -- My first impression of V

#40 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 01 March 2004 - 07:03 PM

So we have to try absolutely *everything* before we're qualified to comment on it?  That makes no sense.  You might as well say that since I've never been nuked, that perhaps it's not as bad as it's made out to be.

And I don't want to used an absurdly extreme example like that without making the point that it's true in the sense that you can't try certain things without immediately taking the damage associated with them.  You can't try crack cocaine without a reasonable chance you end up an instant addict.  You can't let certain philosophies out of the bag, like Fascism, because they are self-propagating and difficult to stop.  We know this, and yet people still say, "but we know nothing about it!".  

Let's face it, sometimes you have to go with your gut or your ethics and the little that you do know.  You can't trust everything to pure empirical data because obtaining the data is not always safe.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same sex Marriage

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users