Hello everybody

[MikeH]

How in the world can a man marry a man? No man has a right to marry another man, there is no right being denied?

It doesn't have anything to do with them being stupid.

Although arguably having risk taking genes improves ones chances for success and intelligence.

You are demonstrating the same inability to understand those different from you as those who can not understand how a man would want to have sex with another man.

JM

This is where the word man is getting in the way and the word person is more helpful.

If a person can marry a person, why does their gender matter?

[Jon Miller]

What is the risk in letting gay couples marry? There is none. So how can risk aversion be a factor?

Huh?

Risk genes (this is how they are named) are related to how accepting of change you are. There are correlations with intelligence/success (higher risk taking with higher intelligence/success).

Change is 'riskier' than a lack of change.

JM

[MikeH]

Not always.

[Zevico]

Are all conservatives really too stupid to understand that a person might love another person and want to marry them, and that the person might feel that being denied that right when others are allowed it is unfair?

I understand why they might feel that way perfectly well. They want social acceptance and validation. But a desire for social acceptance and validation is not a reason to make a law. Social acceptance and validation occurs via society accepting that form of relationship, by definition. Not by legislation.Those who refuse to socially accept gays will do so whether or not we introduce a gay marriage law. Creating gay marriage laws to recognise love is a bit like a legislative command to turn back the tides, like the fairy tale of King Canute.

[Jon Miller]

Just read Zevico's arguments.

Even if the only reason for marriage is for legal rights to guardianship of children, the technological advances that mean that gay couples can have children now makes it essential for just that reason.

And I agree. And I think that if those arguments are used on conservatives, more of them (at least, more of the non-bigoted ones) would change to support gay marriage.

Using 'bigot bigot bigot' or 'we are unfairly denying them the right to marriage' is the same as bigots going 'promiscuous ***' against homosexuals.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Not always.

In general, it is.

Obviously conservatives should use reason just like liberals.

I definitely support conservatives using reason, and I think following zevico's arguments would mostly come to be pro-gay marriage.

But liberals should also use reason when dealing with conservatives.

JM

[kentonio]

If marriage is a right, then abolishing it discriminates against heterosexual couples and homosexual couples alike. Isn't MikeH's suggestion that we abolish marriage a form of bigotry and discrimination against heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, kentonio? MikeH must be one of those evil Republican conservatives I keep hearing about.

Can I just request that you add new posts instead of editing old ones, I only saw this because I happened to scroll back up.

In answer to your question, no that wouldn't be a form of bigotry and discrimination. The details of marriage are basically irrelevant to this discussion, its about the equality of all people receiving the same equal treatment within society. I'm absolutely with Mike on this, take all religious connotations out of marraige and then if people want to go get blessed by their vicar, priest, rabbi, iman or whatever then good luck to them.

[MikeH]

And I agree. And I think that if those arguments are used on conservatives, more of them (at least, more of the non-bigoted ones) would change to support gay marriage.

Using 'bigot bigot bigot' or 'we are unfairly denying them the right to marriage' is the same as bigots going 'promiscuous ***' against homosexuals.

JM

Of course it isn't. Being genetically predisposed to things not changing doesn't mean every decision you make, no matter how it affects anyone else, will be to maintain the status quo.

For me the pertinent question is "if gay marriage was legal, would you vote to change to make it illegal" I think of the population that would not vote to make it legal the vast majority would also vote to change the status quo to make it illegal. Which sort of skewers your argument.

[MikeH]

In general, it is.

Obviously conservatives should use reason just like liberals.

I definitely support conservatives using reason, and I think following zevico's arguments would mostly come to be pro-gay marriage.

But liberals should also use reason when dealing with conservatives.

JM

I would actually say that in general in biological population terms stagnation is almost always bad. And this applies historically to societies that have stagnated too... so I'd say generally resisting change is more dangerous than embracing it.

[Jon Miller]

There has been calls to removal conservative thinking from the human race.

Like homosexuality.

It would be a lot more reasonable (some argue that conservatism causes more damage/etc, I don't necessarily buy it), but it doesn't fit with a 'tolerant' society and there is significant evidence that there are genetic components (and it is a much larger part of society than homosexuals).

By the way, in europe, a lot of people with conservative thinking are socialists or communists (to be clear I am not talking about the political parties/etc). It is possible that in some future time conservative minded people would be pro gay marriage and 'liberal' minded people would be pro changing it to be heterosexual only.

JM

[Jon Miller]

I would actually say that in general in biological population terms stagnation is almost always bad. And this applies historically to societies that have stagnated too... so I'd say generally resisting change is more dangerous than embracing it.

Risk taking is good for the population but often bad for the individual.

As I said, at least right now, there is evidence that risk taking genes are positively associated with success/intelligence.

But you can definitely imagine situations where non-risk taking genes would be the more successful ones.

JM

[MikeH]

I understand why they might feel that way perfectly well. They want social acceptance and validation. But a desire for social acceptance and validation is not a reason to make a law. Social acceptance and validation occurs via society accepting that form of relationship, by definition. Not by legislation.Those who refuse to socially accept gays will do so whether or not we introduce a gay marriage law. Creating gay marriage laws to recognise love is a bit like a legislative command to turn back the tides, like the fairy tale of King Canute.

If we didn't have any laws which gave special rights to married couples, that would be fine. But we do in the UK, so we need to equalise it so as not to penalise couples who are same sex.

[Jon Miller]

Of course it isn't. Being genetically predisposed to things not changing doesn't mean every decision you make, no matter how it affects anyone else, will be to maintain the status quo.

For me the pertinent question is "if gay marriage was legal, would you vote to change to make it illegal" I think of the population that would not vote to make it legal the vast majority would also vote to change the status quo to make it illegal. Which sort of skewers your argument.

If they were brought up in societies where gay marriage was the norm, I disagree.

It is a preference. I already stated that I think that majority of conservative minded people, if they are allowed to rationally look at arguments like Zevico's, would come to the pro-gay marriage stance.

What isn't right is saying 'bigot bigot bigot' or that they must be convinced by the 'change' argument.

JM

[MikeH]

They must be convinced that all people, no matter their age, sex, ethnicity, sexuality, deserve the same fundamental rights. And if they don't they are a bigot.

[MikeH]

If they don't consider marriage to be a fundamental right, they allow that we can get rid of it.