Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Ben Kenobi]

It's fairly obviously implied when you marry that your spouse may divorce you at any time - not everybody says 'to death do you part' when they get married, and even if they do, that doesn't mean as much in the legal sense as you'd like it to mean.

Most people mean, "till unhappiness do we part", and then we wonder why divorce is so high.

When I joined the Catholic church, we give vows, just as if you were to get married. One of those vows is to defend the teachings of the Catholic church. Now, I'm sure you could go off and break them immediately, but then what's the point of making the vow in the first place and getting married?

Secondly, did it ever occur to you while arguing marriage should be more like other contracts, did it ever occur to you that it's utterly irrelevant for the usual contract if the people signing it happen to be the same sex? And would it be demanding 'special rights' to expect a right to rent an apartment from a male landlord?

Landlords can specify all the time, female tenant or whatnot. As I said to Mr. Fun, the government decides what is permissible within a marriage contract, degrees of consanginuity, age, etc. I don't see why it cannot specify one man and woman.

Oh, and - you didn't really just say homosexuality as practiced was abusive, did you? Please tell me I'm not supposed to read it that way.

I said homsexuality as practicied is unhealthy, just as Doc. Strangelove put forward his assertion on polygamy being unhealthy therefore it ought not be legal. If he's willing to retract his statement I'll retract mine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you see anyone else in this thread backing you up on this ridiculous notion that straight men and gay men are treated the same under the laws concerning marriage??

"Truth remains, whether defended by one or many."

You aren't seriously asserting that just because everyone agrees makes it true?

I use words like "retarded" because that's what arguments like yours are. First, you seem to have no concept that two people who marry one another are usually attracted to one another - of course there's no literal attraction gauge device involved, you idiot.

And that's my point. From the perspective of the government, the government doesn't care about attraction. The government is indifferent as to whether two people are attracted to one another. All the government cares about is whether they have consented to marry one another.

If the government cared about attraction, they wouldn't permit marrying for money, but they do and there's certainly no bars established.

And seriously, WTF do you mean by "gay men denying themselves" anything!?

Gay men deny themselves their right to marry another women. They currently possess the right but they aren't doing so, exactly like someone who declines to vote, because they want to change the voting system first. They are not making use of the rights they already have, because they don't like the current system.

Gay people are not demanding special rights

The right they are demanding is the right to marry a person of the same sex, which does not currently exist. They are also making the rather dubious assdertion that they have the right to marry anyone to whom they are attracted. Up here they are demaning the right to marry everyone they are attracted.

You're a real imbecile, either because you're so dense to sincerely believe in the fallacious arguments you make, or because you know the arguments you make are false and continue to use them anyway.

For someone who has as much education as you do, the best you can say is that I'm an imbecile? I continue to use these arguments because you've not brought out an argument that deals with it. You prefer to label it stupid, and then move on. It's not a stupid objection I'm afraid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All of those are easily addressed by the fact that polygamy is illegal. Legalize it and some of these problems go away.

Quite right. This also comes up in discussions of decriminalization or legalization of drugs. People say look at the type of people who use and the obvious answer is these type of people dominate users because the drug is illegal. If it was legal, far more people (including what folks would consider "respectable people") would use... or at least use openly.

[Monk]

Now, I'm sure you could go off and break them immediately, but then what's the point of making the vow in the first place and getting married?

I can easily understand why people do it. But either how:

You didn't reply to my actual point.

The point was that the vow is absolutely irrelevant in a legal perspective, and that this is good.

Landlords can specify all the time, female tenant or whatnot. As I said to Mr. Fun, the government decides what is permissible within a marriage contract, degrees of consanginuity, age, etc. I don't see why it cannot specify one man and woman.

Again you're not replying to my actual point.

Do you realize it looks bizarre to see you arguing marriage is not as much like other contracts as it should be, and then not taking into account that the gender of those involved is utterly irrelevant to a usual contract?

And if we suppose some twisted politicians decided a male landlord could only rent out to females, or male doctors only treat female patients, would you argue that this wouldn't be a problem with our idea of equality?

I said homsexuality as practicied is unhealthy, just as Doc. Strangelove put forward his assertion on polygamy being unhealthy therefore it ought not be legal. If he's willing to retract his statement I'll retract mine.

And again again again you're not replying to my actual point. I think it was quite clear I was asking if you found homosexuality abusive as it is practiced. Could we stop the side-stepping just briefly?

[Krill]

You did it again!

[Q Classic]

I said homsexuality as practicied is unhealthy, just as Doc. Strangelove put forward his assertion on polygamy being unhealthy therefore it ought not be legal. If he's willing to retract his statement I'll retract mine.

And again again again you're not replying to my actual point. I think it was quite clear I was asking if you found homosexuality abusive as it is practiced. Could we stop the side-stepping just briefly?

There are lots of instances where heterosexuality, as practiced, is unhealthy.

There are lots of instances where homosexuality is practice healthily. Sometimes, even vigorously.

Apparently, Ben just hates gays because he had one ****ty, unhappy landlord, which is perfectly fine. I hate straight males, people of Turkish extraction, and contractors for that same reason. Indeed, I think they should be treated as second-class citizens.

[MrFun]

I'm getting burned out arguing with BK in this thread. I think I'm done for now - he thinks he has refuted my rebuttals with real arguments. I can't argue with someone who is delusional.

[Drake Tungsten]

You haven't even tried to refute my argument.

[Monk]

The right they are demanding is the right to marry a person of the same sex, which does not currently exist. They are also making the rather dubious assdertion that they have the right to marry anyone to whom they are attracted.

This reply of yours was to a comment on 'special rights'. Now, we get the part about MrFun being just as much entitled to marrying a woman as the rest of the Americans. So far so good. But how do you define 'special rights'?

[Ben Kenobi]

The point was that the vow is absolutely irrelevant in a legal perspective, and that this is good.

How so? Unless steps are taken to the contrary, (ie, divorce), the legal assumption is that you are indeed married until death do you part.

Do you realize it looks bizarre to see you arguing marriage is not as much like other contracts as it should be, and then not taking into account that the gender of those involved is utterly irrelevant to a usual contract?

Marriage, you are dealing with 3 people, the government, the husband and the wife. The government has a say in the recognition of marriage as between one man and one woman. This is what I already discussed thoroughly with Mr. Fun further up in the thread. Marriage isn't your usual contract in that the government, through established jurisprudence, has the authority to define what qualifies as marriage, and can set limits and bounds.

And if we suppose some twisted politicians decided a male landlord could only rent out to females, or male doctors only treat female patients, would you argue that this wouldn't be a problem with our idea of equality?

There is nothing barring a landlord from advertising for female only tenants. It's not considered discriminatory.

And again again again you're not replying to my actual point. I think it was quite clear I was asking if you found homosexuality abusive as it is practiced. Could we stop the side-stepping just briefly?

Abusive? It has far higher rates of abuse. Men are far more likely to be abused in a homosexual relationship.

[Ben Kenobi]

But how do you define 'special rights'?

Finally, a good question! Thank you monk.

I'd say a special right was something like an entitlement of parapelegics to a wheelchairs, or even my hearing aids. It is an extension of an existing right to cater to a small minority of people.

I think gay marriage falls in the same category. It is an extension of a right designed to cater to the needs of a small group of people. Whereas, I could argue that the hearing aid allows me to function more normally, folks who require glasses could also argue the same for them, and so on and so on. The same thing we see for marriage. Everyone will want their own 'special' form of marriage catered and included.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are lots of instances where heterosexuality, as practiced, is unhealthy.

Agreed, but the same does not apply to marriage between a man and a woman.

There are lots of instances where homosexuality is practice healthily. Sometimes, even vigorously.

Apparently, Ben just hates gays because he had one ****ty, unhappy landlord, which is perfectly fine. I hate straight males, people of Turkish extraction, and contractors for that same reason. Indeed, I think they should be treated as second-class citizens.

I expected to be flamed. Oh, well. Flamesuit now on

[Q Classic]

Agreed, but the same does not apply to marriage between a man and a woman.

Of course not. The Bobbitts were really healthy. As are Mr. and Mrs. Woody Allen. And the Clintons. And the Gingriches. And Mr. and Mrs. Britney Spears (both marriages).

Yep, you're right. Those were all healthy.

I expected to be flamed. Oh, well. Flamesuit now on

That's because you're generalizing about a whole group of people just because you had one ****ty experience. Not only are you generalizing them, you're actually claiming to make judgements on how healthy they are, mentally and physically, with no real evidence outside of anecdotal evidence.

That'd be akin to me judging all of Christianity (which I don't), based on you.

And believe me, for as homophobic as you are, it wouldn't equal how hostile I'd view your kind.

[Monk]

How so? Unless steps are taken to the contrary, (ie, divorce), the legal assumption is that you are indeed married until death do you part.

Of course. I was referring to the legal consequences of saying 'to death do us part' thing which are non-existant and should remain so - not the marriage as such.

There is nothing barring a landlord from advertising for female only tenants. It's not considered discriminatory.

You have again not answered the question you were asked. I'm talking about a situation where I was prohibited by the gov't to rent another man's apartment because we're both male. And I'm asking you if there is any reason to oppose legislation like this based on your ideal of equal rights.

Abusive? It has far higher rates of abuse. Men are far more likely to be abused in a homosexual relationship.

I think that's a vague answer. Even if you're perfectly right about the statistics, I'm asking you to clarify a very general statement about 'homosexuality as practiced'. I don't think you'd ever say that black people are criminal just because stastistics showed they commited more crimes.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm talking about a situation where I was prohibited by the gov't to rent another man's apartment because we're both male. And I'm asking you if there is any reason to oppose legislation like this based on your ideal of equal rights.

I'd be against it for a very different reason. I believe landlords should be able to rent to whomever they choose, and this is a restriction on their property.

Even if you're perfectly right about the statistics, I'm asking you to clarify a very general statement about 'homosexuality as practiced'. I don't think you'd ever say that black people are criminal just because stastistics showed they commited more crimes

As for my earlier statement. I said that homosexuality is unhealthy. Reason being that they are much more susceptible to STDs, are more likely to suffer from addictions including drug abuse, etc. More likely to commit suicide, and it's invarient on whether you live in San Francisco elsewhere. Then there are the physical consequences as well which aren't healthy. I doubt people want me to get into prolapsed rectums and all.