Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because you're generalizing about a whole group of people just because you had one ****ty experience.

While it is true that my perception is coloured by these experiences, the statement that homosexuality is unhealthy is a clinical reality entirely independent of my assessment.

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.

Would you like me to get into the stats? I have them.

[Monk]

(A special right) is an extension of an existing right to cater to a small minority of people.

Got it, Ben, thanks. Now let's go back to a time where it was illegal to have gay sex, hang out in gay bars, publish gay-themed literature, even kiss your same-sex partner on the street.

When these prohibitions were lifted, do you think our societies were granting gay people equal rights or special rights?

I'm noting that all the gay dudes of then were perfectly free to have sex with women at home and kiss them on the street, but then decided not to use that right.

[Ming]

Using your logic,
Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to drive. They are the highest risk drivers by a long shot.
But the government issues them drivers licenses.

All fast food restaurants should be closed... because research shows that eating this kind of food often leads to serious health problems.
But the government issues them permits to operate.

Smoking should be illegal... many studies show how unhealthy it is
But the government makes tons of money on taxes off of it

And there are many more examples...

Denying gay couples the equal right to marriage simply because of your argument that is it "less Healthy" doesn't hold water.

And... Gays are not asking for MORE rights... simply the same right as any other couple, contrary to the crap you keep posting.

When are you going to actually come up with an argument that makes sense?

[Monk]

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.

I'm NOT asking you if my scenario is a good idea, no sane person believes that. I am asking you if you believe it's possible to argue against a concept like that because it violates equal rights, either by principle or as a logical consequence.

Oh and by the way, when there's something you won't answer or clarify, that's all right.

But then tell, don't show.

[Ben Kenobi]

Got it, Ben, thanks. Now let's go back to a time where it was illegal to have gay sex, hang out in gay bars, publish gay-themed literature, even kiss your same-sex partner on the street.

You are speaking of Griswald vs. Connecticut?

I haven't made my mind up on that one. Scalia and Thomas, it was one that they had differences in opinion. Thomas, arguing that freedom of association guaranteed that freedom, whereas Scalia saw that removing the restriction would lead to a future push. Both were right.

As for gay bars, I believe that there's nothing wrong with a bar catering to a certain clientele. Just the same as bars that don't want to have to deal with it, shouldn't have to either.

When these prohibitions were lifted, do you think our societies were granting gay people equal rights or special rights?

No. The sodomy ban applied regardless of sexual orientation. It didn't treat gay people any different from straight people. It was lifted because it violated privacy, not equal protection.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm NOT asking you if my scenario is a good idea, no sane person believes that. I am asking you if you believe it's possible to argue against a concept like that because it violates equal rights, either by principle or as a logical consequence.

When you have the property argument? No, not really. Use the best tool you have, and restriction on property really is the way to go. Renters have the rights to rent to whomever they want.

[Ben Kenobi]

Teenagers shouldn't be allowed to drive. They are the highest risk drivers by a long shot.
But the government issues them drivers licenses.

They are faced with far more restrictions up here in Canada. I was the last group that had the opportunity to have it when I was 16. They cannot get a full license until they are 18.

All fast food restaurants should be closed... because research shows that eating this kind of food often leads to serious health problems.

But the government issues them permits to operate.

The government also shuts them down if they fail an inspection. Again, not really a good argument. Should the government shut people down if they go to the doctor for treatmernt for STDs?

Smoking should be illegal... many studies show how unhealthy it is
But the government makes tons of money on taxes off of it

And rapidly banned here in Canada. They are banning smoking cars now.

There is a reason I said I lived in a totalitarian government.

Denying gay couples the equal right to marriage simply because of your argument that is it "less Healthy" doesn't hold water.

What's the purpose of government involvement in marriage? Government has explicit goals and desires from marriage, which gay marriage does not acheive. Health is just one of them, which is a good reason for the government not to approve of gay marriage.

And... Gays are not asking for MORE rights... simply the same right as any other couple, contrary to the crap you keep posting.

They are asking for a special right, one that does not currently exist that will be of primary benefit to them. It would be like me asking for publicly funded hearing aids.

[Monk]

You are speaking of Griswald vs. Connecticut?

No. I'm speaking of the general development in civil rights that gives two gay dudes the same rights my girlfriend and I enjoy. We don't have to discuss the issue of privacy and such.

You stated to MrFun that regarding marriage, homosexuals are asking for special treatment rather than equal treatment because he has as much right to marry a woman as any other American man. With your definition of special rights in mind, I'm comparing the situation to a time when MrFun was legally able to kiss a girlfriend on the street, but not a boyfriend.

I'm expecting you'll either confirm that gays who wanted to kiss their loved ones in public were demanding special rights, or you'll change your view of what special rights are.

As for gay bars, I believe that there's nothing wrong with a bar catering to a certain clientele.

That's cool, but nobody is accusing you of anything else. You're once again answering a question that wasn't asked, ignoring some that were. And while I'd honestly like to discuss the issue with you, I'm afraid I don't really have the patience for much more of this moving the goalposts (wasn't that the term).

[Ming]

They are faced with far more restrictions up here in Canada. I was the last group that had the opportunity to have it when I was 16. They cannot get a full license until they are 18.

But they still let them drive... and they are far more dangerious than other drivers.

The government also shuts them down if they fail an inspection. Again, not really a good argument. Should the government shut people down if they go to the doctor for treatmernt for STDs?

But only if they fail an inspection... they still let them serve food that is unhealthy and raises the risk of serious health problems for those that continue to eat it.

And rapidly banned here in Canada. They are banning smoking cars now.

But still legal with the government making money on taxes.

So once again, your argument is flawed. No surprise here. Using your lame "it is less healthy" argument just doesn't work. The government already allows less healthy actions. So yet again, another one of your arguments crushed.

What's the purpose of government involvement in marriage? Government has explicit goals and desires from marriage, which gay marriage does not acheive.

And they differ from your goals and desires... Again, straight people who can't have kids are allowed to get married... and marriage leads to stability, which the goverment wants, and it works for both gays and straight.

Again, another loser argument on your side.

Health is just one of them, which is a good reason for the government not to approve of gay marriage.

No... as already PROVEN, this is a non issue, since the government already allows tons of unhealthy actions.

So, do you have any real arguments left.. because every one you have ever used doesn't hold up.

They are asking for a special right, one that does not currently exist that will be of primary benefit to them.

What special right... the right to marry who they want. They want the same benefits that others have... EQUAL RIGHTS.

It would be like me asking for publicly funded hearing aids.

HUHHH.... not even close. Plus, with socialized healthcare, don't you already fund hearing aids with your taxes...

You claim a man should have the right to rent to whom he wants, so a man or woman should have the right to marry who they want.

Again... you have no real arguments Ben... just your religious beliefs.

[loinburger]

I would gay marry Ben in a heartbeat.

[MrFun]

You haven't even tried to refute my argument.

That's because your argument is insincere - you only want to manipulate or exploit the argument for legal polygamous marriage as a boogey-man red herring. In actuality, you oppose equal marriage rights for gay people.

Sign up with an activist organization that is promoting and advocating for legally recognized polygamous marriage, march with polygamous activists in protests, and so on and maybe then I can take you seriously.

Because right now, your fake argument for wanting legal polygamous marriage is a joke, nothing more.

[MrFun]

When are you going to actually come up with an argument that makes sense?

BK never will.

[Drake Tungsten]

That's because your argument is insincere

No, it's not. You just want to label it as such because you don't have a good response.

In actuality, you oppose equal marriage rights for gay people.

I have no strong feelings about gay marriage or polygamy. I do have strong feelings about hypocrisy, however, which is what you're wallowing in when you claim that homosexuals have the right to marry who they want but polygamists don't...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Christ-on-a-crutch, Drake, if you're going to troll, at least man up and admit you're trolling -- because I can't believe that you're stupid enough not to see the difference. But for people who are too stupid (not that I'm naming names), here we go -- again:

1) The premise underlying the push for legal gay marriage is that the State has no right to restrict the parties to a contract by gender, because gender is a constitutionally-protected category (the same logic, with race substituted for gender, underlies Loving v. VA). Limiting the number of participants in such a contract, however, violates no equal protection clause.

2) The Court has long held that, while religion is also a protected category, activities that would otherwise be illegal do not become a right when carried out under the guise of religion. Thus, while some religions may practice polygamy, and religion is a protected category, the activity of polygamy enjoys no such protection. This is why Rastafarianism isn't our largest faith.

Surely you get that. Why aid and abet Ben on his crusade of clueless hate?

Edit - for what it's worth, I actually think it would be fine if polygamy were legal. But the argument here is one of rights within our legal framework, not broader philosophical musing. On those terms, there's no equivalence.

[Drake Tungsten]

The premise underlying the push for legal gay marriage is that the State has no right to restrict the parties to a contract by gender, because gender is a constitutionally-protected category (the same logic, with race substituted for gender, underlies Loving v. VA). Limiting the number of participants in such a contract, however, violates no equal protection clause.

Marriage isn't limited by gender. It's limited by the number of participants of each gender than can enter into the contract (one of each).

The Court has long held that, while religion is also a protected category, activities that would otherwise be illegal do not become a right when carried out under the guise of religion.

I never argued that they did. My argument is that there isn't a right to gay marriage in the Constitution and that if you create one, as gay rights activists want, there's no logical or moral reason not to create further rights that will allow other alternative lifestyles like polygamy to be folded into the concept of "marriage."

People like Mr. Fun, who only want marriage for their own interest group, are hypocrites of the worst sort.