Gay Marriage Bill Passed in New York's State Government.

[Kralizec]

Do they really, not so sure. Marriage goes beyond equality in law because it's a tradition, and I understand why people feel gay marriage is claiming too much. I see it as an act of aggression towards these people

Fragony, that's BS. I'm not going to waste any words explaining why.

I don't subscribe to the "why not?" theory of legislation, but the "why?". I can understand why homosexuals want civil marriage between members of the same sex, but I don't see why I should support it nor do I see an overall benefit to society at large.

"Why"? Because gays want to get married, it means a lot to them and there isn't any good reason for not allowing them to.

I really don't see why a segment of the population would have to justify something that would make them enormously happy and wouldn't affect the rest of society at all, by proving that it would be an overall benefit to society. Sorry, but your argument smells like a cop-out, I suspect that your opposition is more grounded in your religious beliefs than anything else.

[PanzerJaeger]

"They can have their world and I can have mine". How much more respect could they ask for?

I didn't know you were such a multiculturist.

Again, I just don't see much incursion into your world by gay people. They're not trying to stop you from being able to marry.

In fact, one can only reason that your support for authoritarian intervention to stop their wishes reveals the opposite. I mean, you're the one attempting to shape public policy against the collective wishes of a group of people that have nothing to do with you on an issue that does not affect you.

Who is attempting to limit who in this situation? Who is trying to stop who? Which group is trying to force its way into the other's world and impose its world view on the other? Is this an issue of leftist utopia building or, as Newt would say, right wing social engineering?

That's the problem you take any sort of involvement in the public sphere and use it as an excuse to take away all their rights. That's why nobody can ever really escape.

Which rights have you lost? From what I can tell, you would prefer to be able to discriminate against them in the workplace. While there is some merit to that position in the abstract, it is really unseemly in application. Further, that battle was lost a long time ago, based very much on the tax argument. Why should you be able to benefit from infrastructure gay people help pay for if you discriminate against them?

Come visit the United States and I'll show the effects of real leftist utopia building - the broken school systems, the bankrupted businesses, and the abandoned cities. If you're feeling surrounded by gay marriage, it might give you a bit of perspective.

I can agree with the first, but not so much the second. I don't subscribe to the "why not?" theory of legislation, but the "why?". I can understand why homosexuals want civil marriage between members of the same sex, but I don't see why I should support it nor do I see an overall benefit to society at large.

I guess I'm more libertarian on social issues, but I do not think social change in the direction of more personal freedom necessitates a benefit to society at large. It only needs to be free of negative externalities, or at least very net positive when compared to the benefits.

For example, abortion should be illegal because the personal freedom it entails comes with an inordinately high cost. Speed limits should be enforced because the freedom to drive as fast as one wants is outweighed by the increase in traffic accidents and fatalities. In the '60s, the altruistic benefits of ending segregation were deemed worth the period of social disharmony it caused. On the other hand, the social cost/benefit analysis on drug legalization is a bit more murky. We as a society are currently reassessing whether the limits on personal freedom in that realm are worth the benefits.

Gay marriage is actually the only debated social issue of our time that I can think of that does not have an associated social cost.

[Lemur]

Speed limits should be enforced because the freedom to drive as fast as one wants is outweighed by the increase in traffic accidents and fatalities.

Sigh. I want a midwestern autobahn. I can dream, can't I?

[HoreTore]

The social cost associated with gay marriage would be the decline of their* morals in society.

Something we shouldn't care about any more than I would expect any of you to care if I believed my socialist morals were in decline.


*those opposing gay marriage, mostly christians

[Rhyfelwyr]

I didn't know you were such a multiculturist.

Oh but I am, in the same sense that Apartheid South Africa was termed 'multiculturalist'. Give people their own world.

That's really what the American ideal was to the early settlers. The idea that they could go and have their own community and be left alone. Quakers had their town, Presbyterians had theirs, Mormons had their etc.

The problem with gay marriage is that when the state sponsors something, then I am as a citizen also sponsoring it. And I don't want to have to acknowledge gay marriage, because to me it will never be a real marriage.

And of course, gays should not have to recognise my idea of marriage. Which is why it would be best for the state to not be involved in the whole idea of marriage. But it is so I guess both sides just have to fight it out.

Again, I just don't see much incursion into your world by gay people. They're not trying to stop you from being able to marry.

In fact, one can only reason that your support for authoritarian intervention to stop their wishes reveals the opposite. I mean, you're the one attempting to shape public policy against the collective wishes of a group of people that have nothing to do with you on an issue that does not affect you.

Who is attempting to limit who in this situation? Who is trying to stop who? Which group is trying to force its way into the other's world and impose its world view on the other? Is this an issue of leftist utopia building or, as Newt would say, right wing social engineering?

Well what is it that I am denying to gays? A right or a privilege?

They are intruding on my world because they want to use the same state that I am a part of to legitimise their lifestyles. Reminds me of the case where the Catholic guy said he refused to pay taxes which will fund abortions. It's the same principle, though for a far less horrendous issue.

As for this being social engineering, of course that is what it was always about, given the historic role of the nuclear family. Changing things is leftist social engineering.

Which rights have you lost? From what I can tell, you would prefer to be able to discriminate against them in the workplace. While there is some merit to that position in the abstract, it is really unseemly in application. Further, that battle was lost a long time ago, based very much on the tax argument. Why should you be able to benefit from infrastructure gay people help pay for if you discriminate against them?

I really do not think you can impose such restrictions on people just because of indirect benefits that they may/may not get from investments in public infrastructure. Otherwise the consequences of such a line of thought would be pretty totalitarian.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Come visit the United States and I'll show the effects of real leftist utopia building - the broken school systems, the bankrupted businesses, and the abandoned cities. If you're feeling surrounded by gay marriage, it might give you a bit of perspective.

Not to go off topic, but those examples are not completely leftist utopia building problems. School systems are broken for many reasons many of which are conservative in nature. Bankrupted businesses needs to be clarified since idk what specifically you are pointing out. Abandoned cities varies depending on which city you are talking about.

[Centurion1]

I would blame the school problem on the overarching leftist educational goal of connecting more closely with children (as compared to most of the other school systems in the world), leaving no children to inferior educations (be they mentally handicapped, inner city, etc.), granting the students more power in the classroom and parents more say.

That being said i would also blame programs such as the neo cons No Child left Behind, teachers being attacked often by the media and government as easy pandering, i would also blame the administrators of schools.

Finally and most of all i blame parents.

However, all this is not the forum for this discussion

As for gays i am so strongly ambivalent i am pro gay. I have gay friends and homosexuality doesn't mean anything to me. This does not mean i care about it. I feel like both sides just use it to get votes just like abortion. I do not give a crap which a politician supports because it is radically low on my political cares list. If a vote comes up i say yes because i just want to to be done so i can stop hearing about this. Social problems are always a backseat in my mind to the economy and foreign affairs.

[Fragony]

'Fragony, that's BS. I'm not going to waste any words explaining why.'

You will have to as it's pretty simple, people who get married make a commitment to a future. Treating a dead end the same way, well I will do that. But don't ask from me to not see the difference. You also see the difference, otherwise you would just call it 'marriage' instead of 'gay marriage'. Gays shouldn't want marriage imho, it simply isn't possible to be the same thing. How would said gays feel if I can marry my business partner for tax breaks, let's devaluate what they have the same way, who are they to judge me

[Lemur]

Gays shouldn't want marriage imho

And yet they do, in droves. Strange how they want to be happy and settle down. Inexplicable, really.

[Fragony]

And yet they do, in droves. Strange how they want to be happy and settle down. Inexplicable, really.

Sure and I don't mind that, but gay marriage remains a farce. A blue car isn't a red car, just because it simply isn't

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well what is it that I am denying to gays? A right or a privilege?

Something that there should be no legal restriction against, because there is no argument whatsoever in denying them such freedoms.

They are intruding on my world because they want to use the same state that I am a part of to legitimise their lifestyles.

They're intruding on your world because they want to live in the same state as you? Or because they want the state to consider their civil union under the law equal to a heterosexual civil union under the law, a matter which has absolutely no affect on you whatsoever, but affects them greatly?

The concept of "none of my business" should apply here. Suppose you don't like interracial marriage. Suppose you disapprove of it greatly, and your religion considered it a sin. Suppose you want to be part of a church or private club which believes wholeheartedly that it's not right, it's wrong.

That's all well and good. And you can be part of such an organization. But, you also have no business telling interracial couples that they cannot get married. Your opinions have no bearing on the matter. Your approval is not required. Your consent is not required. Your prejudice is no business of the state.

Your moral values, questionable as they would be in this case, mean absolutely nothing, and thankfully so, as we're talking about a hypothetical where I think we'd actually both agree, opposing interracial marriage is wrong.

I've not seen much of any argument demonstrating why same-sex relationships are anyone's business, any more than interracial couplings are. None at all, save "I don't think it's right". It's amazing how poorly that plays in court, and even if it can't always get settled in court, you'll probably need more than that to win the argument in the court of public opinion, which is steadily favoring the same legal status for same sex couples, although some people are too gutless to call it marriage. That will also change.

Given that the underlying arguments supporting your position are all meaningless, the legal status of barring same-sex couples from wedding is in question and is being reversed one state at a time, legislatures are rectifying bad laws, and public opinion is swinging in favor of these changes, you'll need to bring more to the table than "I disagree with it."

Reasons would be good.

Reminds me of the case where the Catholic guy said he refused to pay taxes which will fund abortions. It's the same principle, though for a far less horrendous issue.

I didn't want to pay taxes to fund the bombing of Iraq, according to my non-religious but equally important principles of not bombing innocent people for no reason, or for bogus reasons. The world isn't a perfect place, and that case is neither here nor there.

As for this being social engineering, of course that is what it was always about, given the historic role of the nuclear family. Changing things is leftist social engineering.

The nuclear family has no bearing on this discussion at all, and an example of one kind of family does not invalidate the existence of other kinds of families, or make the people involved any less worthy of rights and privileges.

The onus is on you to demonstrate why society has an interest in preventing these people from being happy when it affects no one else, and you'll also have to demonstrate that in legal terms, not religious ones, because religious laws thankfully are not enforced by this state.

The reason why that onus is on you is because there have been several arguments advanced which suggest that there are no legitimate reasons to oppose legalizing these unions, and many legitimate reasons to allow it, such as treating people equally under the law.

Sure and I don't mind that, but gay marriage remains a farce. A blue car isn't a red car, just because it simply isn't

I'd say your analogy is a farce, and entirely pointless to boot.

[jirisys]

Sure and I don't mind that, but gay marriage remains a farce. A blue car isn't a red car, just because it simply isn't

But both of those are cars.

Just not the same.

And no one is dumb enough to actually say that. Only those that say they are.

Also, what the post above said.

~Jirisys ()

[Louis VI the Fat]

How would said gays feel if I can marry my business partner for tax breaks

I think you'll find you can do just that. So long as you can show that your business partner is of the other sex.

[Fragony]

'I'd say your analogy is a farce, and entirely pointless to boot.'

Oh, k. I was just wondering what your opinion was glad you stopped by.

Again, gay marriage is a farce because it's a dead end. If Ryl and PVC feel that something has been taken from them not only do I sympathise, I agree. They will have to suck it up but it doesn't hurt trying to understand them.

[Askthepizzaguy]

'I'd say your analogy is a farce, and entirely pointless to boot.'

Oh, k. I was just wondering what your opinion was glad you stopped by.

I aim to please.

Again, gay marriage is a farce because it's a dead end.

How so?

If Ryl and PVC feel that something has been taken from them not only do I sympathise, I agree. They will have to suck it up but it doesn't hurt trying to understand them.

I understand their viewpoint, and I'm sad to say I once shared it. People can change.

[Fragony]

How so?

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible. Asking to pretend it's the same thing is not classy, you can say 'why not' but you can also ask 'why do'.

[Fragony]

How so?

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible. Asking to pretend it's the same thing is not classy, you can say 'why not' but you can also ask 'why do'.

[Lemur]

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible.

Very strange perspective. Adopting an orphan does not qualify as "starting a family"? How about using a surrogate mother? And as for having a future, don't we all have brief little lives that end? Surely if two people want to spend the time they have together, they shouldn't need to come begging to you for permission.

Your perspective only makes sense if you squint and look from a particular angle.

[jirisys]

Very strange perspective. Adopting an orphan does not qualify as "starting a family"? How about using a surrogate mother? And as for having a future, don't we all have brief little lives that end? Surely if two people want to spend the time they have together, they shouldn't need to come begging to you for permission.

Your perspective only makes sense if you squint and look from a particular angle.

Reminds me of a spanish comedy show which has a gay guy separated from his boyfriend, artificially inseminating (he doesn't like sex with a woman) a lesbian who wants the baby and all three people and her girlfriend live not quite happily. What's really important is that I cannot really say that it hasn't happened yet. And still. Should the man and woman marry just because they have a baby together?

Would you call Angelina Jolie's marriage a non-marriage simply because their kids are adopted?

~Jirisys ()

[Askthepizzaguy]

Because marriage has always been about starting a family

False, and I can give you any number of flagrantly obvious reasons why it's false.

There have been numerous examples in this thread already. That's perhaps the easiest non-point in this argument to refute, but you continue to use it when it's been thoroughly refuted and discredited.

a promise of a future.

False. You know, sometimes people get married even when they're aware they have terminal illnesses. Sometimes, the lack of time left on earth inspires people to literally "spend the rest of their lives" together, even if it's just a few months.

A 'future' for themselves or their children is not the only possible point to marriage, nor the only accepted one.

For gays that's not possible.

False. Gays can procreate, and that's been explained countless times as well. Gays raise families, and that's also been explained countless times. It's not even hypotheticals we're talking about. It's historical fact, indisputable fact.

Asking to pretend it's the same thing is not classy,

Telling gay people they aren't to be treated equally as other couples and families is not classy.

you can say 'why not' but you can also ask 'why do'.

And when sound reasons are given as to why, the next logical step is to ask so.... why not?

And the reasons given are not reasons in the slightest.

[Fragony]

Very strange perspective. Adopting an orphan does not qualify as "starting a family"? How about using a surrogate mother? And as for having a future, don't we all have brief little lives that end? Surely if two people want to spend the time they have together, they shouldn't need to come begging to you for permission.

Your perspective only makes sense if you squint and look from a particular angle.

A succesfull society is where you keep a respectful distance. There is nothing wrong with being gay or being different in general, but different it is. Gay marriage isn't keeping that respectfull distance and that annoys me. Why is not being discriminated by law not enough for them, why claim what isn't theirs.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Respectful distance? You mean like folks with religious opinions telling people who aren't members of their faith that they need to follow the laws of someone else's holy book? Or perhaps, claiming that religion defines marriage, when interfaith marriages happen every day, and secular, agnostic, and atheist folks get married all the time? Or suggesting that traditions must apply to people who don't follow tradition, because it is tradition? Or that tradition has any meaning when the tradition itself has changed repeatedly over history? The respectful distance of putting it to a vote whether or not the couple down the street can get married, even though it doesn't affect you at all?

That kind of respectful distance?

Ah, the nonexistent kind. Gotcha.

[Fragony]

Traditionalists mostly tolerate their lifestyle, it would be nice if gays showed the same courtisy . I don't blame tradionalists if they see it as an act of agression.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Let's talk for a moment about unwarranted government intrusion into people's lives, which is the holy grail of conservative ideology.


You want to look at most kinds of pornography in your home? That's fine. And many will argue the government has no right to intervene, unless there's a reason for it, such as viewing child pornography, which violates age of consent and is by its very nature predatory. You want to get absolutely plastered drunk in your home, even though drinking and driving (or even being publicly intoxicated) can be illegal, and is provably dangerous and irresponsible? Sure, that's fine. And many will argue the government has no right to intervene, unless there's a reason for it. You want to own all kinds of guns and ammunition, which can be used dangerously and irresponsibly? Sure, that's fine. And many will argue the government has no right to intervene, unless there's a reason for it. You want to hold certain beliefs, and start organizations inside your house dedicated to the worship of whatever you like, and condemn whoever you want as a sinner? Sure, that's fine. All of these are bedrock principles of "conservative values".

But, here we arrive at an inconsistency. We are suggesting that the private morality police of everyday voters, combined with state and federal governments, are to be invited into our lives, for this instance. This is an exception to the rule.

Family values voter, state legislator, and Senator, all sitting down at a table with a gay couple, in their home, uninvited, without a warrant. They are telling this couple that they cannot do the same things that family values voter can do with his loved one, and giving absolutely no reasons for it. Here, a couple's life together is in the hands of total strangers, politicians, whose opinions have no bearing on whether or not they love each other, and will stay together. They are telling this gay couple that they can veto their attempts to get married, and that they are not entitled to see each other in the hospital or be afforded the same status of family or spouse that other couples have. And the reason given is "no reason, we just think tradition is good for its own sake. Now be second-class citizens, and stop being all up in our face about wanting equality already! Let's put it to a vote. 3-2, you lose."

Yes, indeed. The gays are all up in our face, while average joe voter and state legislator and Senator are sitting in their home, telling them that they aren't equal, they aren't the same, and they're not entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms as family members and heterosexual spouses, and that's the LAW. That's not just the private opinions of churchgoers and assorted unaffiliated homophobes, which they're entitled to have in their own home.

No, they're sitting at the dinner table of the gay couple, making their private opinion the law of this couple's household, telling them that since they have the votes, they can veto this couple's marriage. Render it null and void, without just cause. Then, these fearless crusaders for limited government go home to their house, and decry the government intrusion into their lives such as paying taxes, or not being able to own assault rifles; because apparently, it is a sacred thing to not be bothered by the government in unwarranted fashion... the default situation is to leave people be, and let them lives their lives as they want if they aren't harming anyone, because that's what freedom means. Except of course, when you're the ones intruding. Then of course, it's a bedrock principle, a moral value that founded this country.

But it pertains to matters for public courts, and everyone pays taxes on public courts, therefore there's a loophole, and all of a sudden mister no-government-interference has a say in this matter!

Interesting. So, when a gay person wants the same rights to visit their spouse in a hospital as heterosexual couples, this becomes a matter of public interest why? When a gay couple wants their spouse to be considered "family" and be entitled to their estate when they die automatically, how is that wish destroying heterosexual marriages? When did these private legal matters become something that hetero person who doesn't even know them (and has bias or disgust toward them) has a say in?

I constantly hear complaints from certain people that gay people are a distraction, and their rights aren't even rights, and their freedoms aren't even freedoms, and that we shouldn't even be wasting our time talking about this stuff, and that sometimes, they wish gays would just be okay with the near-equal status that people imagine that they have. You want them to be quiet about these perceived injustices? You're tired of debating them? You don't ever, ever, want to have to subject yourself to the homosexual "agenda" ever again? I have a simple solution for you. Stay out of the debate if you don't like it, stay silent on the matter if you want to end the debate, and you want to focus on the 'real issues affecting America' then for the love of consistency, stay focused on those issues instead of allowing certain politicians with no energy policy, no foreign policy, no economic policy, and no other agenda besides lowering taxes throw controversial issues like gay rights out there to distract the millions upon millions of people who should have absolutely no say in what gay people do with their lives, and get them to focus on imagined threats to the "traditional family" instead of real threats to the "traditional family" like divorce, marital infidelity, spousal abuse, drugs and alcoholism, depression, and society's changing views on the importance of marriage in the first place.


You don't want to waste time debating this? Finally let it go.


You see the gays as the aggressor here? That would be called blaming the victim. The aggressor is the person who says that gays can't have certain rights and freedoms because they said so, blows raspberries, and then complains that there's even a debate about the issue.

[Fragony]

Not going to read all that, but I expect there's a lot of self-rightiousness there

'You see the gays as the aggressor here?'

yep

[Strike For The South]

Not going to read all that, but I expect there's a lot of self-rightiousness there

'You see the gays as the aggressor here?'

yep

Aye, I need a new schtick

[jirisys]

Now I see why the org loves you ATPG. Bravo!

It is funny, Fragony decides to go on and admit their own defeat/apathy towards something they care about and fight for.

Nevermind it's 1 degree vision on the world.

"No, let the poor persecuted atheists on Indonesia be jailed for thought crime, they are insulting our mighty religion by saying that they exist".

"It was the black population of South Africa that destroyed a perfectly good system of government. They are nothing but brute barbarian anarchists."

"The people of Greece are so self-righteous they cannot begin to see that it is their own fault that the government hid the finances, they should have done something back then, not now, they're even not fighting for anything, they are just wanting to destroy state property, bunch of aggressors, the government did a good job managing the crisis."

It's not long before we hear these statements.

~Jirisys ()

[ajaxfetish]

Because marriage has always been about starting a family, a promise of a future. For gays that's not possible.

Glad to hear my aunts somehow don't have two kids. I think the oldest's even a teenager by now. Do you need to sober up, Frags?

Ajax

[Fragony]

Glad to hear my aunts somehow don't have two kids. I think the oldest's even a teenager by now. Do you need to sober up, Frags?

Ajax

It's the idea behind no, it isn't even my idea I am not against gay marriage myself

[Ironside]

So is this not a "Gay rights" issue then?

Why do we even have the "Gay concept", why is anyone defined by their sexual preference? Who cares unless you want to have sex with them?

The predjuces comes from them being gay, so to make the problems they encounter public, they must also define themself as gay. Compare to Jew for example.
You don't need to tell anyone that you're Jew, thus avoiding any problems of being Jew. That won't come any closer to solve the underlying problems though.

When the issues are resolved, saying that you are something won't be controversial, but only needlesy boring. I'm a computer user and a TV watcher. To something more unusual: I play a bit of piono. I can juggle with 4 balls.

As for this being social engineering, of course that is what it was always about, given the historic role of the nuclear family. Changing things is leftist social engineering.

You're talking about the nuclear family being the primary and ideal family unit?
You mean the tradition mainly existing in Western Europe and being less than 100 years?

Sure, it's existed before that and was quite common in some regions. But it wasn't idealised and often was a transition state. The extended family was much more prevalent.