Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[DanS]

I guess this all was pretty predictable, but I never expected such a huge landslide in an election where more Democrats voted than Republicans. St. Louis isn't cosmopolitan, but it's a big city nonetheless.

I'm coming around on the question of families. It's true that traditional marriage is in a sorry state when half of all marriages end in divorce. Because of this, it happens that lots of people have more than one mom or dad, counting step parents in the mix (which many do). Then you have adoptees meeting their biological parents after they're 18. Probably, many adoptees accommodate their biological parents in their construction of what it means to be a family.

For me, I guess it comes down to the definition of marriage. There's a mental block there. It's obvious to me that marriage is between one man and one woman in our society. They might do it differently in muslim societies or African societies, but we aren't a muslim or African society. We've already fought this fight with the Mormons. The RCC allowing gay marriage widely during the Medieval period is a real laugh riot that's unworthy of serious discussion (I can make disparaging jokes about it all night though).

Given this definition, the only real grounds for argument to me is why a redefinition would be worthwhile to society. In other words, what's in it for us all?

[Kuciwalker]

Gay people could finally marry the people they love, perhaps, and it doesn't hurt anyone else?

[DanS]

That's not answering my question. What's in it for us? How are you going to "buy" my vote against this referendum?

[Kuciwalker]

By "us" do you mean "straight people" or "everyone"?

[DanS]

Everyone, the vast majority of whom are straight.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, it causes no harm to straight people, and it allows gay people to marry the person they love (making them happier)... so, overall, there's a benefit. It makes some people happier at no cost to anyone else.

[DanS]

You aren't answering my question. How is it benefitting society? If I could see a benefit (ultimately to me through society) then I would have an excuse to dismiss what the Pope says about the subject and could try to modify what I know to be true about marriage in our society.

Here's an example argument. Gay marriage would encourage monogamy among gay people. If this were successful, then STD rates would be reduced substantially.

[MrFun]

freedom for all law-abiding people, and equal citizenship is a benefit for society

[DanS]

Now that the anti-sodomy laws have been struck down, so you have freedom to do what you like. Your idea about equal citizenship is decidedly different than my idea.

But anyway, perhaps if you were more concrete on the benefits to society...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

a.

Where have I said that the only purpose of marriage, and the only benefit that society recieves from marriage comes from procreation?


b.

Perhaps if you cared to read this, you would refrain from weaving baseless strawmen.

c.

The business of a marriage counsellor is to deal with these issues before they arise, and so, they do have authority, as the couple themselves have requested such counselling.


d.

A totalitarian faith that encourages marriage counselling. Horrors! Next thing we'll know we'll have nazi jackboots storming the Riechstag.

e.

I suggest you look at that again. They don't.


f.

That they get married because they want love and companionship ?

That's not an impossible ideal.

g.

Considering that I'm a protestant, I find this approach laughable. Christians allow divorce, but consider it to be like severing off a limb rather than ending a contract. So they treat the issue of divorce with much greater concern, than the rest of society.


h.

To encourage a behaviour implies preferential treatment.

Well you've excelled yourself, with a Nazi reference, and 'Christians' rather severing limbs than getting divorced. Are you considering a career in stand up comedy? I swear, you may have a future at this rate.


Let's do the checklist:

a. Who harps on about reproduction being tied to sexual intercourse?

You do.

Who emphasises the need for marriage to be for the production of children, to the extent that couples not wanting to spawn in the Kenobic rush upstream will be actively discouraged from getting married?

Oh that's right. You do.

b. Oh, baseless strawmen.

Sorry, I was taking you as my exemplar, you're so proficient at it in these threads. I believe the first part of my reply covers the supposed baselessness of my earlier retort, but we could always quote from that thread where you harped on about having sex when your 'future' wife wasn't ovulating and caught yourself out.

If she's not ovulating you ain't going to be reproducing is ya?

You'd be doing it for fun. Well I suppose even you can contradict yourself.

Bad boy.

c.

Does every couple seek or go through marriage counselling?

Can't recall Britney Spears doing that in the drunken rush to get hitched in Vegas or Reno or wherever it was.

In which case why bring it up? Oh, to make it seem as though your absurd proposal for some
'Pastor Kenobi's Guide for Young Lovers' would be an everyday occurrence.

Hooey and eyewash.

Keep your nose out of other people's business- if they want to get married it's their affair whatever the reason.

d.

I invoke Godwin. Really, what a ludicrous melodramatic carry on. Religionistas are quite totalitarian enough on their own without exhuming the corpse of National Socialism. Not even effective as a troll.

e.

I was brought up a Catholic, was for a time a devout Catholic and still have friends and relatives who are, including a priest or two. I suggest with regard to Catholicism I know what I'm talking about- from personal experience.

f.

Note how I altered your reply? Impossible ideals- well, wanting to get married if you're gay, and have the same aspirations and hopes that heterosexual couples have, who don't wish to spawn progeny either in or out of wedlock is clearly an impossible ideal- and it looks like you'd want to make it one for those heterosexuals too!

Wow- your faith is so sharing, caring and inclusive isn't it?

That finger wagging, don't do this routine, just makes me glow all warm.

g.

Now which 'Christians' are these with the amputee fetish? The Anglicans, whose faith's founder went through a few divorces of his own? The ones who go through no fault divorces perhaps?

The ones who realize that people change, grow apart, through no fault of their own and being stuck in a loveless union is degrading and dehumanizing?

Not your sort of 'Christian' then.

h.

'To encourage a behaviour implies preferential treatment?'

I'm sorry, are you undergoing difficulties with your Kenobic-English translator ?

Dear Obi Gyn, I encourage you to look both ways before crossing the road.

Whoops, forgot to say that to my partner this morning, clearly, I prefer you.



'I suggest then you study some sociology.' Obi Gyn

I suggest you study some social history- study the real past that is, instead of living in a fantasy past.

[Berzerker]

Why does the freedom of others require you to benefit as well? Actually, there is a benefit, helping to preserve or restore the freedom of others would hopefully help preserve or restore your freedom. And if that's a bit too ambiguous, consider that a ban such as this violates your freedom already by depriving you of your freedom of association. The fact you would never feel the need to exercise such a freedom doesn't matter, you gave that freedom away.

Now, what gets me riled up are all these people who want help protecting their freedom only to turn around and take my freedom and that is why I object to "gay marriage". Most homosexuals are Democrats and/or liberals and wouldn't think twice about helping others take my freedom and the hidden agenda behind this issue is the "right" to sue people who refuse to recognise marriages between gay people.

But I don't ask "what's in it for me" if someone wants to smoke tobacco or eat ice cream... Your freedom may or may not benefit me but it isn't supposed to, it's supposed to benefit the free... You...

For me, I guess it comes down to the definition of marriage. There's a mental block there. It's obvious to me that marriage is between one man and one woman in our society. They might do it differently in muslim societies or African societies, but we aren't a muslim or African society. We've already fought this fight with the Mormons.

That brings up a problem, we aren't Muslim or African. So where does this "marriage" in our society come from? Christianity? The Bible? And most of those who object to "gay marriage" do so on religious grounds... But allowing them to impose their religion on others violates the 1st Amendment. That means marriage in our society needs to be defined in broader terms to escape the church-state problem.

Btw, the Mormons should have won that battle if morality mattered. But the SCOTUS effectively turned the land of the free into a communist country with it's ruling on polygamy. The court announced that "the free exercise thereof {religion} meant only religious thought or belief, not practices. Hell, even the most strict communist system couldn't outlaw religious thought, it merely drove religious practices underground. Would the court had made the same ruling if Congress banned reading the Bible or going to church? Of course not, so the 1st Amendment became "democratised" with the majority getting to decide who can practice their religion.

[DanS]

Why does the freedom of others require you to benefit as well? Actually, there is a benefit, helping to preserve or restore the freedom of others would hopefully help preserve or restore your freedom. And if that's a bit too ambiguous, consider that a ban such as this violates your freedom already by depriving you of your freedom of association. The fact you would never feel the need to exercise such a freedom doesn't matter, you gave that freedom away.

Freedom of association? So marriage is like a club or political party now? Wow.

That brings up a problem, we aren't Muslim or African. So where does this "marriage" in our society come from? Christianity? The Bible?

Who knows? It goes back thousands of years for sure. Did my German ancestors have more than one wife? When did my Welsh ancestors start availing themselves of common law marriage? But in any event, this doesn't even matter to me. That's just the way it is. Like the sky is blue.

Btw, the Mormons should have won that battle if morality mattered.

Yeh, but they didn't win.

[Kuciwalker]

[qE] Originally posted by DanS
You aren't answering my question. How is it benefitting society?[/q]

Society is made up of people. I would assume making people happier counts as a benefit to society. Not only does gay marriage do this, but it doesn't hurt anyone else! So society benefits, because more people are happier.

[Whaleboy]

I don't think that BK is going to agree with everybody here because we're all operating on differing interpretations of marriage. With our differing premises, the logic we use to reach our differing conclusions is all fine (for the most part, BK I'll spare you examples of a couple of your doosies), so let's talk about definition instead.

I, personally, find my interpretation to be more consistent and ultimately workable of course but BK: You claim marriage is for life, between a man and a woman to the end of producing a child, but is that the only end for the specified means? Are there not other means to reach that end? Are there not other perfectly valid ends for marriage in their own right? Furthermore, why does it need to be for life? Even a traditional marriage that satisfies the aim of children can surely break up without you batting an eyelid?

Kuci: You're learning my child

[SpencerH]

I think this result just goes to prove what has been mentioned in previous threads on this issue. This isnt the right time to force the question. Religious conservatives will obviously be against it. Constitutional conservatives will be against it simply because of the actions of the Mass supremos. Liberals will be against it because....... hmmm? Why are the liberals against it?