Gay Marriage

[Bottle]

The bold is the problem. More people definitively does not benefit society. Additionally, there is a right to marriage, and the US courts and others worldwide have confirmed it.

Okay, but how that right works depends on how it's defined. You can't just say "As it's between two people it ought to apply to any conceivable mix of two people regardless of sex" because that's jumping the gun.

Actually, in the USA it's not jumping the gun, because in our country the default assumption is individual rights.

The burden of proof is on those who think that consenting adults should not be permitted to enter a legal contract because of what genitals they have. And, frankly, there's zero chance of them making that case. They failed when they tried to claim that certain people shouldn't be allowed to enter marriage contracts because of the melanin content of their skin, and they're going to fail with this pathetic bigotry as well, because there's no rational argument for it. It is purely, exclusively, and entirely just an "EEEEW GAYS R ICKY" statement, with no substance or merit.

[Grave_n_idle]

In fact, I do support removing the state from marriage altogether. Marriage should not offer any legal benefits.

Your opinion. You don't want those benefits, don't get married.

But stop using your dislike of the institution as an excuse to deprive others of equality.

[Noveros Prime]

Horseshit.

Worse, irrelevant horseshit.

Prove me wrong.

Missing the point, my friend. 'Tradition' of polygamy is pretty obviously an argument against marriage between one man and one woman.

The United States does not have a history of mainstream polygamy.

Your opinion. You don't want those benefits, don't get married.

But stop using your dislike of the institution as an excuse to deprive others of equality.

A grievous sin is to make two unequal things equal.

[Archem States]

'Traditional marriage' is a nonsense. 'Tradition' has allowed the exchange of partners as property, allowed marriage-against-will, made marriage a punishment for rape, and allowed polygamy.

'Tradition' is one of the worst arguments against marriage equality.

Tradition sustains a people. Destroy its traditions and you destroy its people. And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy? Surely a staunch advocate of gay rights such as yourself would never discriminate against someone based on his sexual preference.

More people definitively does not benefit society. Additionally, there is a right to marriage, and the US courts and others worldwide have confirmed it.

The U.S. courts are immensely pozzed; their opinions are invalid. (Either way, even if there is a right to marriage, marriage is not defined as a same-sex partnership. Ergo, no right to gay marriage.)

Tradition does not sustain a people, it chokes it. 'Tradition' was the only reason we were kept in the Dark Ages for so long.

[Grave_n_idle]

Equating traditional marriage to eugenics is a bit of a stretch.

No more of a stretch than the post earlier that compared allowing homosexuals to marry, to allowing dogs to marry.

Less even, if you think about it - since intermarriage has been used historically to alter an invaded population until it became part of the invading culture. If not actually eugenics, it's close.

[Noveros Prime]

Tradition does not sustain a people, it chokes it. 'Tradition' was the only reason we were kept in the Dark Ages for so long.

Spoken like a true progressive.

[Bottle]

Prove me wrong.

Easy for me to do:

I'm female. Tradition dictates that I should be the property of my husband or nearest male relative, that I should have no legal standing of my own, that I should be barred from attending school, that I should be denied the right to vote, and that it should be legal for my male owner to beat, rape, and abuse me however he sees fit.

"Tradition" only sustains "people" if you carefully define "people" to exclude all of us who get stomped on by tradition. You know, like the 51% of the population who are legal property under traditional marriage.

[Christian Democrats]

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state. Heterosexual relationships are good for the state. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are recognized and gay marriages aren't. It's a pretty simple concept.

Let me steal from you for a second here:

Averagely smart people are neither good nor bad for the state, clever people are good for the state. Therefore, we should discriminate against anyone with an IQ under 150. It's a pretty simple concept.

Sound familiar?

Yes. The state often grants intelligent people benefits (e.g., merit-based college scholarships) not granted to average or less intelligent people. This makes perfect sense.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Let me steal from you for a second here:

Averagely smart people are neither good nor bad for the state, clever people are good for the state. Therefore, we should discriminate against anyone with an IQ under 150. It's a pretty simple concept.

Sound familiar?

And clearly, only highly intelligent and white, blonde, blue-eyed healthy people should be allowed to reproduce for the good of the state.

[Noveros Prime]

Easy for me to do:

I'm female. Tradition dictates that I should be the property of my husband or nearest male relative, that I should have no legal standing of my own, that I should be barred from attending school, that I should be denied the right to vote, and that it should be legal for my male owner to beat, rape, and abuse me however he sees fit.

"Tradition" only sustains "people" if you carefully define "people" to exclude all of us who get stomped on by tradition. You know, like the 51% of the population who are legal property under traditional marriage.

Ah, a feminist. This explains much. Though you haven't actually disproven my point, which was that tradition creates and sustains a culture. Rather, you have done a bit of whining and flailing in an attempt to steer the conversation into the territory of emotional reasoning. How very...typical.

[Bottle]

Let me steal from you for a second here:

Averagely smart people are neither good nor bad for the state, clever people are good for the state. Therefore, we should discriminate against anyone with an IQ under 150. It's a pretty simple concept.

Sound familiar?

Yes. The state often grants intelligent people benefits (e.g., merit-based college scholarships) not granted to average or less intelligent people. This makes perfect sense.

Please link your source supporting the claim that merit scholarships are awarded based on IQ or other objective measure of intelligence.

Note: school performance does not necessarily reflect intelligence.

Note also: tons of federal and state aid goes to need-based scholarships, and I'm not aware of any of these which require an intelligence test for someone to qualify.

[Bottle]

Easy for me to do:

I'm female. Tradition dictates that I should be the property of my husband or nearest male relative, that I should have no legal standing of my own, that I should be barred from attending school, that I should be denied the right to vote, and that it should be legal for my male owner to beat, rape, and abuse me however he sees fit.

"Tradition" only sustains "people" if you carefully define "people" to exclude all of us who get stomped on by tradition. You know, like the 51% of the population who are legal property under traditional marriage.

Ah, a feminist. This explains your view of the world.

Ah, a troll. That explains your pitiful attempt at flame-bait rather than anything approaching an argument.

Scurry off, little one, you're boring.

[Dyakovo]

Why is someone's fertility any of the government's business?

The government knows same-sex couples can't procreate; hypothetically, how do you propose the government would figure out which heterosexual couples are and aren't fertile?

You say that the government should recognise only couples that can have children and then swing right back round and say that fertility is none of their business.

Do you actually expect consistency?

[Polruan]

Actually, in the USA it's not jumping the gun, because in our country the default assumption is individual rights.

So because a 5 year old has a right to free education a 40 year old also does, purely because of the nebulous 'individual rights' concept?

I'm afraid the 'everyone already has the same marriage rights' argument is actually valid, however much you wish it wasn't. It's pretty cut-and-dried that gay marriage involves creating new rights, as you're widening it so that people (regardless of sexuality) can marry those of the same sex.

The burden of proof is on those who think that consenting adults should not be permitted to enter a legal contract because of what genitals they have.

No it's not and it's not until you prove that. That's just making premises up, and this isn't theology so that won't fly.

And a civil partnership is a legal contract, without any kind of ridiculous parody involved.

And, frankly, there's zero chance of them making that case. They failed when they tried to claim that certain people shouldn't be allowed to enter marriage contracts because of the melanin content of their skin, and they're going to fail with this pathetic bigotry as well, because there's no rational argument for it. It is purely, exclusively, and entirely just an "EEEEW GAYS R ICKY" statement, with no substance or merit.

Please stop with this goddamn horseshit of 'anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage hates gays'. It's insulting and prejudiced.

Not to mention that there is no grand narrative of 'first interracial marriages then same-sex marriages', that's only something American pundits have come up with based on American history. It doesn't have any necessary validity as it doesn't necessarily apply anywhere else.

[Archem States]

Ok seriously, just step back and look at it logically for a second.

Will aloowing gay marriages harm you in any way? No. Lets look at a prediction of how things will turn out.

To gays:

Gays will be allowed to marry.
Gay people will get married.
They will live happy lives, raise a family, grow old together, love each other.
They will either produce the children themselves (which is ok in your opinion) or they will adopt a child (which is good, full stop)
The LGBT community will be happy, equality will prevail. Discrimination will ecome a foreign concept.

To straights:

Absolutely nothing.

Seriously, what have you got to lose.

[Cromarty]

Why should that matter? The state's interest is irrelevant; the state is our servant, not our master. The state shouldn't restrict our activities based on what's best for it; we should shape the state based on what's best for us.

Gay relationships aren't restricted in the U.S.

Can gays marry? No, no they can't.

Thus gay relationships are restricted in the US.

[Grave_n_idle]

Prove me wrong.

A person can move from one culture, society or tradition to another. That person isn't destroyed.

Ergo, you are wrong.

The United States does not have a history of mainstream polygamy.

Nor a monopoly on the institution of marriage, or the term 'traditional'.

But the US does have a history of polygamy, and complex-marriage, and even same-sex couples.

'Tradition' is a poor argument for the purist ideal of one man and one woman.

A grievous sin is to make two unequal things equal.

Hollow rhetoric. Giving people equal rights before the law does not mean you're making those people clones of one another.

The only question is, whether you're deliberately trying to confuse what is meant by 'equal' and 'equality', or whether you actually just don't get it.

[Noveros Prime]

Ah, a troll. That explains your pitiful attempt at flame-bait rather than anything approaching an argument.

Scurry off, little one, you're boring.

Though you haven't actually disproven my point, which was that tradition creates and sustains a culture. Rather, you have done a bit of whining and flailing in an attempt to steer the conversation into the territory of emotional reasoning. How very...typical.

[Archem States]

Tradition does not sustain a people, it chokes it. 'Tradition' was the only reason we were kept in the Dark Ages for so long.

Spoken like a true progressive.

Of course. How in the world do expect to progress as a race if you do not expand. It's like signing your species' death warrant

[Grave_n_idle]

Tradition does not sustain a people, it chokes it. 'Tradition' was the only reason we were kept in the Dark Ages for so long.

Spoken like a true progressive.

Pointless comment.

'Tradition' maintained the institution of slavery. It's hard to argue that only 'progressive' people think that is a tradition better left to history.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Ah, a feminist. This explains much. Though you haven't actually disproven my point, which was that tradition creates and sustains a culture. Rather, you have done a bit of whining and flailing in an attempt to steer the conversation into the territory of emotional reasoning. How very...typical.

So do you like those traditions or not?

What about the "traditional" medicine involving bleeding instead of antibiotics, or the "traditional" Ptolemaic cosmology that places the Earth at the center of the universe, or the "traditional" practice of burning "witches"? Do you agree with those traditions? Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it sane or reasonable. Many traditions are based on superstition and scientific ignorance.

[Noveros Prime]

A person can move from one culture, society or tradition to another. That person isn't destroyed.

Ergo, you are wrong.

Equivocating "people" as a culture with "people" as a person. A shameful display of intellectual cowardice.

Nor a monopoly on the institution of marriage, or the term 'traditional'.

But the US does have a history of polygamy, and complex-marriage, and even same-sex couples.

'Tradition' is a poor argument for the purist ideal of one man and one woman.

Of course it does, but that does not mean we should redefine our institutions to suit the polygamists and homosexuals. Again: they should adapt to ours.

Hollow rhetoric. Giving people equal rights before the law does not mean you're making those people clones of one another.

The only question is, whether you're deliberately trying to confuse what is meant by 'equal' and 'equality', or whether you actually just don't get it.

Equal rights implies equality. The right for every man to vote supposes that every man's voice is equal. There are some men whose ideas are more equal than others. Or would you say that the people claiming that Obama is a Muslim have opinions equal to your own?

[Archem States]

Let me steal from you for a second here:

Averagely smart people are neither good nor bad for the state, clever people are good for the state. Therefore, we should discriminate against anyone with an IQ under 150. It's a pretty simple concept.

Sound familiar?

Yes. The state often grants intelligent people benefits (e.g., merit-based college scholarships) not granted to average or less intelligent people. This makes perfect sense.

So if the government were to suddenly say "ok everyone, if you don't have an IQ of anything higher than a set standard then you are prohibited from higher education. You'd be alright with that?

[Grave_n_idle]

Easy for me to do:

I'm female. Tradition dictates that I should be the property of my husband or nearest male relative, that I should have no legal standing of my own, that I should be barred from attending school, that I should be denied the right to vote, and that it should be legal for my male owner to beat, rape, and abuse me however he sees fit.

"Tradition" only sustains "people" if you carefully define "people" to exclude all of us who get stomped on by tradition. You know, like the 51% of the population who are legal property under traditional marriage.

Ah, a feminist.

'Women =/= property' is hardly an exclusively 'feminist' argument.

[Four-sided Triangles]

So because a 5 year old has a right to free education a 40 year old also does, purely because of the nebulous 'individual rights' concept?

Jesus fucking Christ don't you understand the goddamn English language? "Default" does not mean "permanent and immutable." Incredible, just fucking incredible!