Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Omnicracy]

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law...

You're big on rhetoric, and insignificant on evidence.

Has anyone tried what I proposed?

They'd better have, really - or you're just making big claims, no?

You said it has enough support - prove it.

Would you vote for what I have proposed?

You entire proposal about changing wording?

No - that's not even a real proposal.

Then that is why it wouldn't work. The whole pro-gay marriage side wouldn't get behind it.

[Omnicracy]

Since you ignored it the first time around I'll repost

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Didn't ignor it. I noticed it was adressed for me so I quoted that person and said, "It was adressed for me." Did you miss that?

Nope.
You also haven't answered it.

If you didn't miss that, then why bring it up again?

[Dyakovo]

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?

So... Are you ready to admit you can't answer this?

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

[Dyakovo]

Since you ignored it the first time around I'll repost

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Didn't ignor it. I noticed it was adressed for me so I quoted that person and said, "It was adressed for me." Did you miss that?

Nope.
You also haven't answered it.

If you didn't miss that, then why bring it up again?

Because Goath didn't answer it either.

[Rundland]

It has been stated that one can only be for or against equality, meaning that there is no middle ground, and logically, this is correct.

However, it is possible, even likely, that there is a third group besides the proponents and opponents of equality. Those are the people that don't feel it concerns them personally, don't bother to inform themselves or think it through thoroughly, and consequently decide on vague emotions.

So, assuming lots of people with this mindset exist, having an equal-for-all civil union that is not called marriage might remove some emotional holdups some people might have. It might also help defuse some of the bogus arguments and half-truths that are used to mobilize the public against the "marriage for all" idea. They simply don't work as well against a uniform civil union that doesn't have all the emotional baggage the word "marriage" carries.

So it might be a good way to get broad support for the idea of equality in marriage, I mean civil union.

[Omnicracy]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

My proposal has that same end, in case you didn't notice. Everyone gets equality and trying to stop that goes against the constitution. Your only opposition is that the law in mine doesn't say the word then?

Your proposal isn't even vaguely realistic. It's not going to happen. It relies on the fact that people would change the law - they won't.

Further - it relies on the fact that people will vote in favour of 'civil unions'. They won't - 19 states have amended their constitutions to that effect, already.

wait, wait, wait. THATS your argument agianst me? If your argument is people won't change the law, doesn't that aslo mean people won't change the law to inclued same-sex marriages? And about your second point, 42 states don't have gay marriage. Your argument against me works better against you.

[Grave_n_idle]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

How do you reconcile that absolutist interpretation with my mention of statistical significance?

Or - do you just ignore the parts that don't work for your argument?

The statistics came after I said the thing about my friends, and they weren't sourced. It seemed like they were made up on the spot to cover your own ass.

13 states have statute limitations that prohibit same sex marriages.

Another 10 states prohibit same sex marriage by amended constitution.

19 states have constitutional amendmentsthat heavily limit, or entirely prohibit ANY kind of civil union for homsexual couples.


The difference is statistical.

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?

It shows that almost all the states are opposed to homosexuals being allowed to 'be together'. It shows that about half of them are even willing to amend their constitutions to see that ANY form of union is forbidden.

That doesn't mean the ones that 'only' ban gay marriage will be in favour of other unions.

[Loady740]

i say yes because even gays and lesbians have a right to equality, their human beings just like the rest of us, people just need to learn to get along with them and let them be free to be who they are!






p.s this does not mean im gay, im just fighting for what i nthink is right!

[Grave_n_idle]

Then that is why it wouldn't work. The whole pro-gay marriage side wouldn't get behind it.

So, you admit that you were wrong?

It won't work?

On this, at least, we agree.

[Omnicracy]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

Ok that's what you want.

Exactly, what GnI (and I) want is equality under the law, not equality under the law but only for those that the fundies approve of.

And I want equality under the law too!

But you want to try to change the law until everyone is equal, rather than make everyone legal under the law.

It's not realistic - and it ignores reality.

that just doesn't make any sence. even if you ment equal when you said legal.

[Intangelon]

Nay.

Wherefore, nay?

I just don't care as long as they don't have kids.

Why?

Surely parents are better then no parents.

Indeed. Most fortuitously, there was an article on this very subject in the NY Times Sunday Magazine on the 8th. And lo! in study after study the childen of homosexual parents are no worse off than those with heterosexual parents. In fact, they seem to be more flexible and open to new things. Go figure.

One might wonder why such articles or their source material never find their way to Fox News or other "fair and balanced" news agencies.

Because just saying "the kids are alright" doesn't get the same ratings as "ZOMG!!!!1111one1!!1one!! Homersecshuls are gonna turn their kids GAY!!!eleven!one!!"

One thing that's often amused me about this notion is that often times people in opposition to homosexuals rearing children will suggest the children be raised by the grandparents of one of the couple.

The funny part about this, for those who don't think along my own somewhat bendy-thought processes is this:

Of the two pairs of potential parental figures/guardians, only one of them DEFINITELY raised homosexual children. It is not the homosexual couple.

That is fucking BRILLIANT. I am so stealing that.

[Calemor]

YEA!

All people, regardless of their orientation, deserve the right to marriage. Before I use to oppose gay marriage, I saw it as a slippery slope towards a corrupt and evil society. But after reading about how mixed marriages at a certain period in time were considered "evil, immoral, and decadent," I realized that it was the same arguement with different groups of people. At the time of my parent's marriage, some states wouldn't have recognized it just because my dad was white and my mom South Korean.

Today, that is not considered immoral or evil. And one day, neiter will same-sex marriage. As a Washington resident I voted in favor of Referendum 71, and I am sad to hear that New Hampshire reject theres. Our gay brothers and lesbian sisters deserve equal rights, God loes them as he loves all people.

[Intangelon]

Should gay couples have the right to authorize healthcare for their significant other, yes. Should we call it marriage, no. Marriage is a contract between a man, a woman, and God. God designed and instituted marriage. God designed us for "a man to leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife." God designed and built us, and as our "manufacturer" He knows what is helpful for us, and what is harmful. I love my daughter, but I think that most would say it would be sick to want to marry her. The "equal access under the law" argument doesn't wash here either. What of threesomes? or foursomes? or beastiality? Those who would like those arrangements don't have "equal access under the law." I know, I will probably get blasted for being a "homophobe" or "bigoted" and "hateful", but I am none of the above. I can't think of anyone that I know that I hate, including the wonderful "gays" I know. You asked for my opinion, and you have it.

LOL, I'm not a bigot, I just want to be able to discriminate against others based on my religion...

I guess car manufacturers discriminate against people when they require oil to be kept in their cars and trucks. And yes, we all discriminate against people all the time... I married one person, therefore I discriminated against all others. Now if you want to live a gay lifestyle, that is up to you. Just don't expect me to condone it or try to force me to view it as "acceptable". I'll stick to the manufacturer's guidelines.

Yes, because people are cars and trucks. *nods*

*stops nodding*

Wait....

[Omnicracy]

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?

So... Are you ready to admit you can't answer this?

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Look at grave's own statistics.

[Grave_n_idle]

wait, wait, wait. THATS your argument agianst me?

My 'argument' against you - is that your 'argument' is horseshit.

You make this nebulous claim 'if we change EVERYONE's marriage to civil unions - no one would oppose it)... that you completely fail to provide ANY evidence for. Inded, you fail even to account for how such a change could be possible to begin with.

You present half a plan - it's not complete - and you attack proponents of marriage equality for not signing on to your 'consolation prize' argument.

If your argument is people won't change the law, doesn't that aslo mean people won't change the law to inclued same-sex marriages?

The law doesn't actually need to change.

The Constitutional argument can win the day, because the Constitution says we're all equal under the law.

We don't NEED to change laws to get there.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?

So... Are you ready to admit you can't answer this?

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Look at grave's own statistics.

They do not support the claim of yours that Dyakovo is contesting.

[Omnicracy]

It has been stated that one can only be for or against equality, meaning that there is no middle ground, and logically, this is correct.

However, it is possible, even likely, that there is a third group besides the proponents and opponents of equality. Those are the people that don't feel it concerns them personally, don't bother to inform themselves or think it through thoroughly, and consequently decide on vague emotions.

So, assuming lots of people with this mindset exist, having an equal-for-all civil union that is not called marriage might remove some emotional holdups some people might have. It might also help defuse some of the bogus arguments and half-truths that are used to mobilize the public against the "marriage for all" idea. They simply don't work as well against a uniform civil union that doesn't have all the emotional baggage the word "marriage" carries.

So it might be a good way to get broad support for the idea of equality in marriage, I mean civil union.

Tahnkyou.

[Intangelon]

a rather on point query
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMsVuw8Q-aM&feature=PlayList&p=B422778310A3520D&index=30

I'll see your Depeche Mode cover and raise you a PSA from 2005:

http://www.tressugar.com/5812746

[Grave_n_idle]

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?

So... Are you ready to admit you can't answer this?

But in other states where same-sex marriage failed, civil unions succeeded.

Name one.

Look at grave's own statistics.

You think they show that civil unions succeeded where 'gay marriage' failed?

Other way round, if anything - Vermont legalised unions, and legalised marriage 9 years later. Connecticut legalised unions in 2005, and legalised marriage 3 years later. New Hampshire legalised unions in 2007, and legalised marriages to start in the new year.

Civil unions are - in terms of precedent - a stepping-stone to marriage.


That certainly doesn't show that unions succeed where marriage fails.

[Omnicracy]

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Because you know perfectly well that he was referring to people in general and that you presenting strawman argument doesn't really serve your purpose?

No, I honestly believ he ment anyone, anywhere. If that is not the case he should tell me.

How do you reconcile that absolutist interpretation with my mention of statistical significance?

Or - do you just ignore the parts that don't work for your argument?

The statistics came after I said the thing about my friends, and they weren't sourced. It seemed like they were made up on the spot to cover your own ass.

13 states have statute limitations that prohibit same sex marriages.

Another 10 states prohibit same sex marriage by amended constitution.

19 states have constitutional amendmentsthat heavily limit, or entirely prohibit ANY kind of civil union for homsexual couples.


The difference is statistical.

I asume that is supposed to say somewhere in there the whole "people against gay marriage are also agianst civil unions all the time" justification, but I don't see it. Under purely the informationyou have provided, you've shown 23 states that could accept my proposal. Could you please clarify?

It shows that almost all the states are opposed to homosexuals being allowed to 'be together'. It shows that about half of them are even willing to amend their constitutions to see that ANY form of union is forbidden.

That doesn't mean the ones that 'only' ban gay marriage will be in favour of other unions.

No, but its alot more likely they would support civil unions over gay marriage. Again, your makeing my case sound better. When I said my way was the best way to "get equality tomorow," I didn't mean it would be able to literaly, just that it would work and would work fast than letter-of-the-law gay marriage.

[Grave_n_idle]

And people won't stop fighting if gay marriage is allowed?

No - they'll fight.

They fought when multiracial marriage broke in, too - and it became clear that that was a losing argument, because it means fighting the Constitution.

Now almost no one fights against racial equality in marriage.

If marriage equality is allowed, people will fight - but the fight will be shorter, and simpler, because it will mean fighting the Constitution.

And that's the future I want - where there are a tiny vocal proportion of fringe lunatics yelling about it, but they are arguing fruitlessly against the Constitution.

Ok that's what you want.

Exactly, what GnI (and I) want is equality under the law, not equality under the law but only for those that the fundies approve of.

And I want equality under the law too!

But you want to try to change the law until everyone is equal, rather than make everyone legal under the law.

It's not realistic - and it ignores reality.

that just doesn't make any sence. even if you ment equal when you said legal.

It totally makes sense.

There is law. Real equality will be understood when EVERYONE is equal under that law.

What YOU suggest, is changing that law - trying to find a middleground in it, such that every marriage can become legal through an alleged lack of opposition.

[Omnicracy]

Then that is why it wouldn't work. The whole pro-gay marriage side wouldn't get behind it.

So, you admit that you were wrong?

It won't work?

On this, at least, we agree.

It won't work if people for equality don't get behind it. Would you truely sacrifice equality to keep one little word in the law?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No, but its alot more likely they would support civil unions over gay marriage. Again, your makeing my case sound better. When I said my way was the best way to "get equality tomorow," I didn't mean it would be able to literaly, just that it would work and would work fast than letter-of-the-law gay marriage.

In other words, once again, we have to do a bunch of stupid compromising bullshit just because the majority of people are abject retards.

[Muravyets]

No. What's wrong is that, just because marriage has a religious meaning to some people, those some people get to impose their religious beliefs on everybody, by having marriage defined in the law the way it is defined in their religion.

I agree. Thats not what they were saying, however.

What who are saying? You are not representing anyone but you when you make this bizarre argument about how we should let marriage be religious and civil union be what the government does, and then everyone will be happy.

The people who insist that the word "marriage" is somehow the property of "religion" (without every specifying which religion) are the same people who claim that only their preferred definition of "marriage" is REAL marriage, and if gays are allowed to marry that will just ruin the whole thing, and they want to make sure that no gays can ever marry, and that only hetero marriages that follow the rules of their churches are REAL marriages. And then, even if they can't discriminate by using the government to take away people's legal rights, they can still be shits to other people by declaring their relationships to be somehow fake.

The entire semantic argument is not just a minor sticking point. It is the desperate effort of the losing side to try to claim some official permission and validation for their bigotry against gays.

[Grave_n_idle]

No, but its alot more likely they would support civil unions over gay marriage.

Why is it?

Just because 'only' 23 states have either constitutional amendments or statutes that make 'gay marriage' impossible - doesn't mean they WOULD support civil unions.

Indeed - just because 'only' 19 states expressly forbid civil unions, doesn't mean everyone else allows them.

In January - there will be 5 states that allow 'gay marriage'. There will be 3 that allow civil unions - and 2 of that 3 will STOP the civil unions, in favour of marriage.

In other words - only 6 states in the entire US, allow civil unions OR same sex marriages. And 5 of those, support marriage.

That does NOT argue in favour of 'civil unions' as being recognised as the middleground.

Again, your makeing my case sound better.

Only because you have no apparent idea what is being said. Even by you.