posted
<grin> I hadn't thought of that. Should I change it to D.C.? Or maybe I should leave it just for the laughs.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
New Hampshire is also close to similar legislation, and David Patterson in New York is talking about it as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is kind of strange. It's like watching dominoes fall. Twenty years of "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" and then suddenly, in one spring, bap-bap-bam.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it happened that fast, but that's more or less what happened with women's suffrage back in the teens. Only then it was like 60 years of saying no, and then *poof* western states lead the way, then the northeast, then the midwest, just like dominoes over the course of a couple years until 1920 when it all culminated. If you go back a couple years ago (was it that long ago?) to when Massachusetts started this rolling stone, it's looking like a similar pattern. I think NH, NY and maybe CT or DE will be next, then it'll jump across the country to the west, and states like OR, WA and CA will join up. Then you might see the midwest budge. Maybe.
The problem with this issue for Republicans (the chief opponents) is that it's a short term win but a long term loss. I just read a poll the other day that cemented what we've said here a lot: The nation is becoming more socially liberal with each successive generation. It's the old and the middle aged people that keep defeating this measure. Well over a majority of people in my generation are okay with same-sex marriage, and they are overwhelmingly okay with civil unions at the very least. This is a short term wedge issue that might help them now, but as the older generation or two die off, they'll push more people away than they pull in, and so long as people keep clamoring for this, it'll never go away. Americans are too plucky when it comes to individual rights to let it just die.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with this issue for Republicans (the chief opponents) is that it's a short term win but a long term loss. I just read a poll the other day that cemented what we've said here a lot: The nation is becoming more socially liberal with each successive generation.
The organizations that sign the checks for the Republican think-tanks are pretty much all heavily invested in these terrible wedge issues which used to be productive voter-draws for Republicans, so — as has been noted — the party is essentially stuck with them, come hell or high water. Their party's financial backing has ensured that, in the eyes of the next generation, "republican" will be synonymous with ass-backwards social crusades that do not resonate with them at all. And they are anchored to them so inflexibly that they are struggling with a present-day situation where, according to Thomas Frank, the conservatives' nightmare of permanent defeat might come true simply if Democrats do the right thing and they have been forced into the counter-strategy of making the effort to demonstrate, by means of egregious misrule, that government is incapable of delivering the most basic services.
Look ten years in the future. Today's twentysomethings are now much more reliable voters, a whole new generation of kiddos who have grown up in a world phenomenally more socially tolerant of homosexuality are now voting, and ten years' worth of the old guard have passed away. By this time, the GOP's defining moral standpoints will have escalated to electorally disastrous liability and they are not in a position to readily adapt to that.
Barring a significant change in the large-scale trends of the nation, you might as well say that the two-party system is officially on hold until the GOP's present-day leaders all die off and can be replaced by people who can expand the big tent, as opposed to shrink-wrapping and homogenizing it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I will say though, that as gay marriage becomes a lost battle for Republicans, and as the bans on gay marriage only exist in southern hold out states (because historically they're the last to adopt any sort of progressive social measure and this is no exception), something else will crop up. Slavery, temperance, women's rights, black rights, abortion, gay marriage.
They eventually lose every time, but they latch onto the latest issue and drive it into the ground until they lose and something else comes along. Nothing comes to mind as the next natural battle to be fought, but we'll see in a decade or two what it is.
I would say that this is destined to come down to differing philosophies of government, but at the moment and in the near future, most of the Republican philosophies are out of favor. As your link shows, healthcare is almost lose/lose for Republicans. If they try to obstruct healthcare reform, which it will look like, then the public will turn on them even more. This isn't a subject they can afford to be the party of "no" on, and their plans for goofy tiny tax rebates so people can afford their own plans are only going to prove how out of touch they are with a struggling middle class.
Their best bet is going to be to try and refine the Democratic proposals as much as possible, but their current philosophy is to obstruct the Democrats, say no to everything, and then wait for Democrats to screw up. They can't refine and vote yes on something, or they run the risk of getting painted with it if it fails. It's that kind of thinking that will screw them over.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My dear friends are a little upset. Only because they drove up north about 2 months ago to get married. They live in Bowie, 10 minutes from DC.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a group, people over 65 are the strongest opponents, by a 3to1 margin, and the most likely to vote. Also the most likely die, which won't help their ability to maintain that lopsided vote against gay marriage.
posted
Just outta curiosity, does DC or Marvel recognise the right of gays to get married? Haven't kept up with comic books much beyond occasionally reading a plot line synopsis after hearing a recommendation from an aficianado; and the even rarer reading after someone-nearly-as-outta-contact lends me a copy along with a glowing review.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: My dear friends are a little upset. Only because they drove up north about 2 months ago to get married. They live in Bowie, 10 minutes from DC.
Still has to survive 30 days of Congress.
I think they'll probably let it go, but one wonders if the GOP will take the opportunity to harp on a social issue.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too early in the cycle for more than the comment-because-it's-expected, though GOP surrogates such as RushLimbaugh and PatRobertson will undoubtedly noise it about to attract and arouse their regulars. But a "done deal" will be used by many Republicans next year during the campaign season.
posted
Traditionally DC has been much better about homosexuality than Marvel. Remember Northstar of Alpha Flight? His coming out issue he only admitted it after a knock-down fight with an HIV-positive villain, and then the comic closed with Northstar in a bar surrounded by Wolverine and Puck, all hoisting huge beers in a terribly manly manner. Most ridiculous, pathetic thing I ever saw...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then you might see the midwest budge. Maybe.
Some parts of the midwest might. This part, Kansas, won't. The marriage amendment to our constitution passed by a huge margin, 70-30, IIRC. I noted that most rural counties passed it on an even higher margin, like 90-10. I'm not sure what it will take to overturn this, but my guess is that I will not live to see it.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, maybe Illinois. They're the northern midwest, and after the most obvious places in the northeast and west legalize, I see them as the bridge to more conservative areas. I think the midwest as a whole will eventually, and like we've been saying, it might be slower there, but the youth of the midwest are more liberal than their parents, and a lot more so than their grand parents.
I think also, when people see that gay marriage isn't the harbinger of the collapse of western society, a lot of the mainline non-biblical arguments against it will fade away, and acceptance will grow. I think an alternative likely situation will be a surge in civil unions being legalized in the midwest, which are a lot less contentious. They'll be a bridge to full legalization.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Just outta curiosity, does DC or Marvel recognise the right of gays to get married? Haven't kept up with comic books much beyond occasionally reading a plot line synopsis after hearing a recommendation from an aficianado; and the even rarer reading after someone-nearly-as-outta-contact lends me a copy along with a glowing review.
I don't read many comics anymore but the runaways have an engaged SSC...
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Traditionally DC has been much better about homosexuality than Marvel. Remember Northstar of Alpha Flight? His coming out issue he only admitted it after a knock-down fight with an HIV-positive villain, and then the comic closed with Northstar in a bar surrounded by Wolverine and Puck, all hoisting huge beers in a terribly manly manner. Most ridiculous, pathetic thing I ever saw...
The only gay DC character who comes to mind is Batwoman, whom I've been incredibly lucky to never read. Are there any others?
DC Comics characters who qualify (at least in most continuities. DC reboots a LOT, and has a TON of alternate reality versions of their characters):
Doctor Mid-Nite I Invisible Kid I Element Lad Light Lass Shrinking Violet Obsidian Donner Blitzen Gear II Icemaiden I Madame Fatale (possibly.) Rainmaker Apollo Midnighter Some of the Amazons on Paradise Island. The Brain and Monsieur Mallah Triumph Hero Cruz Josiah Power Maggie Sawyer Batwoman The Question II Jackie Phantom Jetman Some incarnations of Promethea
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that the same-sex couple in Runaways consists of two non-humans. One is a lesbian female; the other is a male shapechanger who wears a female form to please his partner.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: My dear friends are a little upset. Only because they drove up north about 2 months ago to get married. They live in Bowie, 10 minutes from DC.
They would still have had to drive north. This legislation will only recognize out-of-state same sex marriages, not allow for same-sex-marriages to become legal within D.C. Essentially they are saying that if someone brings them a marriage certificate from another state, they will recognize it as a legitimate marriage.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another trend: Fred Phelps & Co. are over time discovering they need to make shorter commutes to stage their protests.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, somehow I totally missed the news about Maine! I have not been able to locate any definitive sources about Gov. John Baldacci's likely response. Anyone know anything about his position on SSM?
I am hoping Congress refrains from getting involved in DC.
That makes two more states (well, er non-states with DC), so I should say two more places in less than as many months. Woo hoo!
As you said in the IOWA SC thread, Samprimary,..... homomentum Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as Maine goes, I've read a few different articles that have a few different opinions on what Baldacci will do. His own Deputy Chief of Staff has said that he'll make up his mind when the measure hits his desk, and that he hasn't decided yet. Others are saying that he's expected to sign it, and that a veto is a long shot. Baldacci himself once opposed gay marriage, but as of April has said that he's keeping an open mind.
From the sound of things, the three hours of debate on the House floor was pretty amazing. Representatives told personal stories of their own experiences and sexuality, there was an impassioned plea from a woman whose daughter is a lesbian but still voted against the measure because of her personal beliefs and how much anguish this caused her. That must have been a rather amazing three hours in general, I'd love to see a transcript or recording.
The House rejected a measure that would have put it to the people for a popular referendum on the issue. The bill itself will amend state law, and will recognize marriage as the union of any two people, while recognizing the right of the churches to marry whomever they want within their own faith, and also recognizes out of state marriages.
But, as there is always a but it seems with this issue, opponents of gay marriage are already assembling the necessary 55,000 signatures necessary to take the issue to the people in what is called a "people's veto." If and when they get the 55,0000 signatures necessary, there will be a statewide vote held to either uphold or veto the proposed law, regardless of what state congress or the governor do, as I don't there is an override in this matter.
So we'll see how Maine shakes out!
As for New Hampshire, a vote will be held at 1pm later today in the New Hampshire house. Apparently the state senate already voted the measure in, which I believe would send it to the governor's desk next....yeah I just did some more reading, and it was already passed in both houses once, but the versions are different and the vote later today will be on a reconciled version. Gov. Lynch, like Gov. Baldacci, campaigned as an anti-gay marriage Democrat. Lynch as recently as last week reiterated his position against gay marriage, saying that he believes the civil union laws already in place are good enough, but he stopped short of saying he'd veto.
Interestingly, the NH bill wouldn't exactly be 100% equal. The age of consent for gay couples would be 18, while for heterosexual couples would be 13 for girls and 14 for boys. Make of that what you will.
Keep in mind that in Vermont, the legislature had to override a gubernatorial veto, and I'm not sure NH and ME can muster the legislative muscle to do the same.
Elsewhere there appears to be a lot of activity on this front. Rhode Island's governor has is actively opposing gay marriage and pledges a veto, while Corzine in New Jersey has openly asked the NJ state legislature to send him a gay marriage bill so he can sign it into law, though it is questionable if such a bill will arise with so many members of the legislature up for reelection in November and the GOP already pledging to make an issue out of it.
Elsewhere, in Minnesota, Gov. Pawlenty has already pledged to veto a measure granting end of life decision making power to same sex couples, calling it a backdoor to gay marriage legalization.
In Washington, the so called "everything but marriage" bill is moving through the legislature, and is expected to be law before the end of the year. It apparently grants every right except the actual word "married" to same sex couples, but once it's passed, it's only a matter of time before the word follows.
There's other stuff out there no doubt, but I didn't take the time to check EVERY state. A lot of gay rights groups are talking about a Gay Marriage Corridor from Maine to Delaware, and signs point to the possibility, since New York is talking about it actively, and well funded groups are pushing in Maryland and Rhode Island, but I still think that's a couple years away. For how liberal New England is, they seem to elect a lot of socially conservative governors that stand in the way of these measures through the legislative process.
I'll update if I see anything else, but I suspect most of you will read major headlines and report them before I do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"For how liberal New England is, they seem to elect a lot of socially conservative governors that stand in the way of these measures through the legislative process. "
Never forget New England's roots They explain a lot. We're naturally suspicious people.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baldacci signed. Maine is in. It will likely be up for referendum though. We'll see if it survives the voters.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:They eventually lose every time, but they latch onto the latest issue and drive it into the ground until they lose and something else comes along. Nothing comes to mind as the next natural battle to be fought, but we'll see in a decade or two what it is.
At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
Marriage is not a guaranteed "right" and as such it's ridiculous to place this as a matter of civil rights and yet that's the only arena that this has been placed in.
I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that. I will voice my opinion that the institution of marriage is:
Not an inalienable right. I just had to pay $60 dollars to get a marriage license. That may not be expensive, but it costs more than it does to vote, live, or pursue happiness.
It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children. Forgive me if my inner philosophy major is coming out right now, but according to every system I can think of (that isn't religious) there is no way to justify a homosexual union as beneficial to the state.
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
And 60 years ago, so would the the issue of interracial marriage have been.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It apparently grants every right except the actual word "married" to same sex couples, but once it's passed, it's only a matter of time before the word follows.
See, I don't think that follows. I think that states which do what Washington is doing will be among the last to allow it to be called marriage. The average voter simply won't see the importance of a word.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
So you're equating an adult homosexual American citizen to an animal? That's a nice little peek into your thought process.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children.
Your first sentence doesn't imply your second.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They eventually lose every time, but they latch onto the latest issue and drive it into the ground until they lose and something else comes along. Nothing comes to mind as the next natural battle to be fought, but we'll see in a decade or two what it is.
At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
Marriage is not a guaranteed "right" and as such it's ridiculous to place this as a matter of civil rights and yet that's the only arena that this has been placed in.
I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that. I will voice my opinion that the institution of marriage is:
Not an inalienable right. I just had to pay $60 dollars to get a marriage license. That may not be expensive, but it costs more than it does to vote, live, or pursue happiness.
It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children. Forgive me if my inner philosophy major is coming out right now, but according to every system I can think of (that isn't religious) there is no way to justify a homosexual union as beneficial to the state.
Seriously. Must we repeat this for every new anti SSM marriage poster to come along? Are you incapable of reading other threads?
Sigh.
No children or horses because consent, consent, consent, consent, consent...
The state does not require heterosexual couples to have children, intend to have children, or be capable of having children in order to marry them. Also, some SSM do raise and even produce children - albeit with some help, but OSM couples sometimes need help as well.
Honestly, one would think that these arguments would occur to you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that.
Apparently I was wrong.
No, I am not equating a homosexual American to an Animal. I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's very exiting, what's happening now. Even if it's a slow process it makes me feel proud of our country to see the states gradually allowing SSM.
I heard of this solution just recently, and imagine it's probably been mentioned before, but it made 100% sense to me: have the government no longer endorse marriage, but only civil unions. Have the civil unions be homosexual or heterosexual, it doesn't matter and it gives both couples equal legal rights. Transfer the title of marriage to be distributed by individual churches, and let them decide what qualifies for marriage. So a same-sex couple could get a civil union, have all the rights that they deserve, and then if their church allows it, they can then get married. If a church doesn't condone same-sex marriage, there is nothing forcing them to endorse marriage of a same-sex couple. What is wrong with that?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children.
This definition is flawed. Would you assert that there is no benefit to a childless marriage? Should the state not permit a sterile individual to enter into marriage?
quote:I heard of this solution just recently, and imagine it's probably been mentioned before, but it made 100% sense to me: have the government no longer endorse marriage, but only civil unions.
I've been advocating this almost stridently for seven years.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
The only thing that the one group has in common with the other is the fact that they are both minorities.
Your same argument could be used to say "will we take up the crusade to treat murders exactly like homosexuals and heterosexuals? After all, murderers are just another minority."
It's fundamentally different. Homosexual marriage involves two adult citizens. Until the day comes that we grant a horse citizenship, your argument is laughable.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TWW, the only thing wrong as far as I am concerned is that there is no good reasons to limit the blessings of marriage to those that are "churched."
The other problem is that, despite the popularity of that solution on the internet, I doubt that very many straight couples would go along with having their marriages be anything but marriages.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the state? No, there is no benefit to a childless marriage. Being married places people in a more advantageous position as far as taxes go. Meaning that one married couple pays less to their government than two single people.
I can think of no reason whatsoever that being married without children benefits the state. Even if you say you are saving money on schools and everything. There is a reason that the state sponsors school and that is because it is in the best interests of the state to have an educated rising generation.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
But straight couples will still get marriages. For them, nothing will change, besides the fact that they also would have civil unions.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Philosofickle, what about a same-sex couple that adopts a child currently supported by the state? How does that NOT benefit the state?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Philosofickle, even if your imagination does not stretch far enough to see the benefits to the state of childless couples are you suggesting that couples who can't or won't have children should be barred from marriage?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I would start the First Atheist Church of San Jose and bless the civil union of anyone who asked (gay, or straight) as a Marriage. Over the Internet. For Five Bucks.
Sounds like a Win for me!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like to think of Hatrack as a fairly accepting bunch, of dissenting opinions at least. So I do not stand here as a martyr knowing that I'm going to have heaps of scorn dumped on me, in my opinion the people here are too good for that.
Apparently I was wrong.
No, I am not equating a homosexual American to an Animal. I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies.
This is a topic that comes up very often and most of the regulars have hashed it out so often that they have simply run out of patience. I think they forget that in nationwide debates, it often becomes necessary to repeat oneself again, and again, and again. Every once in a while, someone will even come up with a new argument. You have not done this so far.
Protecting minority groups is a hugely important function of government. For a society to be free, the majority cannot simply have its way with the minority. Of course, to a certain extent, this is going to happen. There's no way around it. But freedom is an ideal we strive for and so we protect the rights of minority groups.
It's not marriage itself that is the right. It is the right to equal access and equal protection under the law. Right now, if God forbid my husband were in a car accident and in intensive care, I have the right to see him. If he became disabled and cannot work, he could be added to my group health insurance plan. If he died, even without a will (which we have because it's smart, especially when you have kids), I would get his things and, of course, the kids, without a problem.
Whether or not the law should get involved in any of those things at all is a potential matter for debate. But the fact is it does. Marriage brings with it a certain set of legal protections for the unit we call family.
Frankly, I'd just as soon the government stop handing out marriage licenses to anyone. They can leave that up to the church and for any rights they want to bestow upon a family, allow freely entered civil unions.
That's not likely to happen, so if they're going to continue handing out marriage licenses to couples like me and my husband, then I would have them hand out the same licenses to any consenting adult couple.
In a free country, we don't need a reason to make things legal. We need a reason to make them illegal.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
Yes, just like black people are a minority group. Or Native Americans. Or Hispanics. And yes, there is indeed a crusade to have them treated the same as the majority group. Glad you see it our way!
quote:People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
You completely missed kmbboots' point.
Let me put it this way:
In straight sex, gay sex, OR bestiality, there are two partners involved (let's ignore multiple partner sex for the time being).
In the first two situations, it is possible for both partners to give their consent to the sexual act.
In the third situation, only one of the partners is capable of giving consent. The animal cannot - it's not a sentient being. Therefore, it is not mutually consensual.
quote:But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies. [/QB]
I don't see a single post in this thread that falls under any of those categories. Feel free to quote posts that you think constitute strawmen, ad hominem, or "ridicule (sic) fallacies."
Also: can I compliment you on the brilliant use of the slippery slope fallacy in your own posts?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't done much research into the psychology of being raised by a same-sex couple. If said child were more likely to be homosexual (depending on the percentages) then the state may just be perpetuating system that is of no benefit to itself.
If the research showed that children raised by a same-sex couple were not predisposed to one orientation over another then having a child raised in that environment would be beneficial to the state. In which case the solution that you proposed (White Whale) would probably be the wisest course of action to take.
I'll admit my ignorance and make it plain that I haven't done the research on the affects of gowing up in a same-sex household on children.
I will also make it plain that I don't automatically think that the idea of same-sex couples raising adopted children as wrong. If they are raised in a loving and caring environment that can provide more for them than a foster home, then all the better.
However I do wonder about the affects on a girl being raised by a man-man coupling and vice versa.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the rate things are going, why not incest? Or why not bestiality? Shouldn't people that truly love their horse be allowed to marry it?
Slippery slope fallacy, Philosofickle. This 'argument' of yours has no merit. You need to do better if you want to legitimately oppose SSM.
quote:Forgive me if that's too much of an "ick" factor, but 20 years ago so would the issue of homosexuality have been.
Case in point, two-hundred years ago, black people voting would've been a major 'ick' factor too. Hell, one hundred years ago white women voting would've been as well. That's just one reason why your opening argument is bunk.
quote:Marriage is not a guaranteed "right" and as such it's ridiculous to place this as a matter of civil rights and yet that's the only arena that this has been placed in.
Rights aren't rights under the law until, well, the law says they are. So it's a strange argument you're making here as well: we shouldn't make it a matter of civil rights because it's not a matter of civil rights. It can be if we say it is. Why shouldn't we?
quote:# Not an inalienable right. I just had to pay $60 dollars to get a marriage license. That may not be expensive, but it costs more than it does to vote, live, or pursue happiness.
Actually, voting isn't free either. You need identification to vote, which costs money. In fact, by the time you're middle-aged the ability to vote 'costs' quite a lot more than marriage-multiple renewals, even if you live in the same place the entire time.
quote:It is in the best interests of the state to allow marriages that will be beneficial to the state. Meaning marriages with the possibilities of producing children. Forgive me if my inner philosophy major is coming out right now, but according to every system I can think of (that isn't religious) there is no way to justify a homosexual union as beneficial to the state.
As others have said, we don't disallow marriage of heterosexual couples who never intend or even biologically cannot produce offspring. If I decide to marry a woman and during the ceremony we both swore before God and humanity we would never, ever have children, no one would stop us from getting married. Or at least no one would have the legal authority to do so.
So whatever your 'inner philosophy major' says (not that you've actually advanced an argument on philosophical grounds, you've just alluded to one), this 'argument' of yours holds no water either.
In the post I'm quoting from, you haven't made even one logical argument against legalizing homosexual marriage in the United States. Maybe you should switch majors:)
quote: No, I am not equating a homosexual American to an Animal. I am commenting on the rate of change and crusades for minority Privileges in America. Homosexuals in America are a minority group. At present there is a crusade to have them treated exactly the same as the majority group.
Loaded language, first of all. 'Crusade' indeed. 'Movement' is more appropriate. As for your commentary on the rate of change...this is America. Change is what we do here. It's what we were, literally, founded on. Sweeping, unheard of, frightening change.
quote:People who engage in Bestiality (Who are also human, and American Citizens) are a smaller minority group than homosexuals. Will they take up the crusade to be treated exactly the same as straight people and homosexuals?
You're welcome to advance an argument in favor of legalizing bestiality which uses the same rationale as legalizing same sex marriage at your leisure, Philosofickle. 'But you let gays do it!' is not an argument.
Do you actually have an argument?
quote:But you made brilliant use of the straw man, ad hominem, and appeal to ridicule fallacies.
So far your arguments themselves have been straw men, worthy of scorn and ridicule.
quote:To the state? No, there is no benefit to a childless marriage. Being married places people in a more advantageous position as far as taxes go. Meaning that one married couple pays less to their government than two single people.
Certainly there is. Marriage is partially intended to promote stability and happiness, and enables two individuals to pool resources in ways they couldn't if they weren't married. Every single one of these factors - stability, happiness, conserving resources - is of direct or indirect benefit to the state.
Stable people are less likely to engage in risky behavior, which the government may have to address at some point. Happy people are more productive, benefiting the economy as well as drawing less on government resources. Conservation of resources means less 'upkeep' for infrastructure the government must maintain, in terms of roads, emergency services, etc.
quote:
I can think of no reason whatsoever that being married without children benefits the state. Even if you say you are saving money on schools and everything. There is a reason that the state sponsors school and that is because it is in the best interests of the state to have an educated rising generation.
I've just given you several reasons why childless marriage benefits the state, and it took me the time I was typing the previous paragraph to think of them. So far the only real argument you've posed was very, very easily answered.
And, of course, here's another thing to consider: this is the United States. We're not supposed to let our government allow things only if it benefits itself.
Do you have any real arguments against legalizing same sex marriage, or are you just agitating?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now you seem to be holding same-sex couples to a higher standard than heterosexual couples. I don't have citations but there are dozens of ways in which heterosexual parents raise children that is not "a loving and caring environment." If your main concern is that a same-sex couple will raise disproportionate homosexual children, and if the evidence points to that conclusion, then I can see where you're coming from. But I don't think the evidence points to that conclusion by any means.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Look even if children raised by SSC's were more likely to become gay it would be a net benefit as a self correcting population control measure.
IP: Logged |
posted
Philo, do you mind if I jump into the critique of your arguments?
See, I am a happily married man, who looks forward to a long and loving relationship with my wife of 20 years.
We cannot have children.
When I hear arguments made in all seriousness that, "Marriage is for the sole purpose of having children." I fear that if such arguments stick, I'll be forced to divorce my wife and find someone to have children with, or vice versa. I do not want that.
You say that there is nothing of value to the state of my marriage, since it has not produced more excess population.
Here are a few ways I think we've been helpful.
1) The monogamy that is enshrined in our marriage has stopped us from sleeping around and possibly catching and transmitting diseases that are expensive for the government to cure.
2) Together we have been able to afford a home, and pay all appropriate taxes on that home, that we could not have been able to do as two separate individuals.
3) My job provides no medical insurance. My wife's does provide coverage for her husband. As such I do not have to reach into Medicare or other government help to combat all my aches, pains, and illnesses.
4) Since I can afford to get medical attention, I do not hesitate as much, which helps stop the spread of communicable diseases, which is a big help to the government.
5)By combining our resources and incomes, my wife and I have built up each others credit, so we are less likely to become dependent on state handouts. In fact, together we are more successful, so pay more in taxes.
I can go on, but I just realized, your whole argument has one major flaw. You assume that the purpose of the state is to increase the state. That is fascist or communist thinking.
Here in the US the purpose of the state is to help the people. All the people. Even the minorities. Even the gay folks.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
