You know, it kind of makes me wonder... If someone were to put the same vote about "Straight Marriage" and people voted against it being legal/recognized... What then?
This issue is something I have a hard time processing. On one hand, I would want to vote to legalize it, on the other hand, I don't want the issue to be something able to be voted on simply for the fact that I don't believe the people should be able to take something like that away, from any legal relationship.
Food for thought I suppose. This issue is not as simple as it seems, for either side.
Apparently I do live in Pleasantville, compared to wherever you live. And I must say it suits me quite well. Tell ya what, why don't you move to San Francisco and leave South Carolina's culture alone?You are incorrect on all counts. The idea of them being "off the market" is just what is usually the expectation, though there are swingers who are married. Marriage does not mean the same thing to all people. It is a contract. The fact that swingers can be married does not mean society is endorsing swingers by letting them get married.
Where do you live, Pleasantville? That's not how society is. Society operates on us not putting each others actual interests at risk, not in instilling universal norms. They're not the same from family to family, nor are the majority of families organized in the traditional way you describe, for better or worse.
Civil Unions could accomplish that without altering the matrimonial norm that has been typical throughout human history - that marriage is between male and female.Yes that's true, but it contradicts the rest of your argument. Most gays don't want to get married to be accepted, they want to be treated equally under the law and have equal access to marriage.
Comparisons to racism are dubious, for many reasons. It is not yet proven that homosexuality is inborn and immutable, for one.That's exactly what happened for other civil rights advances tht the majority opposed (all of them that I recall) huh? (:
You really believe that is how it would be? That if it started off that way it would stay that way? Do you recall how the Boy Scouts were treated for their stand on openly-gay scouts and scout masters?Only in the sense of legal rights. Churches and religious organizations are separate and there should never be grounds to sue churches for discrimination that applies to government conduct. Churches should be able to exclude anybody for any reason, good or bad.
Intresting point, we'll have to explore that one in another thread sometime.It will come, but at the cost of equality deferred over blind devotion to the false value of democracy. Your argument would apply very well to the South seceding because the majority of them wanted to... actually, yes they should have been allowed to, but not for that reason alone. (:
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Pretty sure traditional nuclear families are not the norm, in terms of majority of Americans, anymore. It suits some people better than others.
Nuclear family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm suspicious of that being a "separate but equal" sort of situation. In name it would be at a minimum. I'm not sure why you value keeping norms the same.Civil Unions could accomplish that without altering the matrimonial norm that has been typical throughout human history - that marriage is between male and female.
I was referring to many different things. The closest example would actually be interracial marriage, which was not really about race per se but what was seen as a deviant sexual attraction to somebody of another race. For SSM, just replace "another race" with "same gender." But anti-miscegenation had no more to do with race than anti-SSM has to do with gender.Comparisons to racism are dubious, for many reasons. It is not yet proven that homosexuality is inborn and immutable, for one.
And I'm aware of the immutable criteria that is considered necessary for strict scrutiny, but that's total BS because religious orientation is covered under strict scrutiny and we know that is mutable. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification]Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
The Boy Scouts should have the right to discriminate as they are a private organization. But that doesn't mean those who fund them have to continue to give their money to a homophobic club. (:You really believe that is how it would be? That if it started off that way it would stay that way? Do you recall how the Boy Scouts were treated for their stand on openly-gay scouts and scout masters?
Similarly, if the Mormons decide that something totally stupid is immoral due to their President having a revelation then it should be their right to choose who they associate with.
Are you suggesting you disagree, or that you were surprised I think that? My social positions are closer to libertarian than liberal, even if my fiscal beliefs are liberal.
Let's see, vote for the personal freedom maximizing option or vote against maximizing personal freedom?
Not a hard decision.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Except that the issue still is not about personal freedom, and trying to make it so-- like so many people are-- only distracts from what this issue is and should be about, and that is which position better serves American families.
I would like to say that as long as people are selfishly and stupidly attempting to make marriage into an issue of personal freedom, they will never get what they want... but sadly that is not true. People keep making the same moronic arguments, keep making them louder, and State by State they appear to be winning.
Enjoy your victory. You deserve to lose every drop of blood it's going to cost you.
"There has never been any evidence that children of gay couples (either biological or adopted) are harmed by their environment. In many cases these children seem to be more well adjusted than their "normally" raised counterparts. From T. Richard Sullivan, PhD affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of British Columbia, and Albert Baques, social worker with the B.C. Ministry for Children and Families, 1999 we learn that “The assumption that a gay and lesbian orientation is anathema to child rearing reflects homophobia and the idealization of a particular family structure that is assumed to be morally superior…[In fact though, research shows that]no differences in well-being and normative functioning have been found between children reared by heterosexuals and those raised by lesbian or gay parents. 'The fear that children raised by homosexuals will grow up to be lesbian or gay suggests that it would be awful if that were the case. In order to prove that they are worthy parents, lesbians and gay men have had to prove that they are not likely to raise children who will grow up to be like them' (Benkov). This despite the fact that studies of over 300 offspring of gay or lesbian parents in twelve different samples have indicated no evidence of significant disturbances in the development of sexual identity.” -T. Richard Sullivan and Albert Baques, 1999. [“Familism and the Adoption Option for Gay and Lesbian Parents” in Queer Families, Common Agendas, Haworth Press, NY p80-82]
Did you mean to make a different point here? If you can clear it up for me, i'd love to hear your position.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by Singularity; 07-12-09 at 11:47 AM.
Does that make me a homo-freak ?
There are two or more points of view on this subject; that one side should be insulted by the other is childish, at best...That said, why not a civil union, but with only two humans, regardless of sex,sponsored by the state...for the homosexuals...if they must.
So, the people seem to go for unlimited "equal rights"...this seems to be good....but is it ??
Why not allow a man to marry his horse ?? This is simply more absurd than two men marrying each other......