Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and that aside, whatever happened to Ben? Are you there, dude? I'm just thinking about the reason for your lack of response to my (actual) questions.

I have been in interviews and canvassing work all day today.

[Ben Kenobi]

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 wouldn't support that specific regulation.

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.

I believe it's a part of freedom of association. You should be free to associate with whomever you want.

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).

I wanted to clarify what question exactly you were asking, because the legal regime has made many different steps and changes along the way, one of which was Griswald.

[Monk]

I have been in interviews and canvassing work all day today.

Oh, no problem.

I should like to think that unlike certain others who recently posted (ahem), you're a good guy who basically means what he says. I'd just wish you would pay more attention to what I'm saying and reply to that - rather than stray away from the stuff that you cannot or will not answer.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

The government discourages it through taxation, (increased insurance premiums, which are mandatory, and purchased from the government), and through graduated licensing, which poses increased restrictions that are not present on other drivers. Is this really the model of marriage you want to see for gay marriage?

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.

Then why shouldn't the governments conduct health examinations of married couples, that are both unexpected and unplanned? Again, the model doesn't work wrt to marriage.

But still legal with the government making money on taxes.

Where the government uses taxation to discourage what they see as unhealthy behaviour.

The government already allows less healthy actions.

They do not endorse them. Allowing gay marriage is not simply the government refusing to intervene, rather it is the public endorsement of gay marriage. You are asking the government to act in a way to regulate and support gay marriage. It would be akin to seeing public commercials encouraging people to smoke, paid for by the government.

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.

Both of these arguments are equally applicable to polygamy, Ming. Yet, maintaining the definition of one man and one woman is advantageous to the purposes of the state to maintain order.

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

They are asking for a right that does not currently exist. I cannot marry a man, even though I am straight.

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

Nope, not at all. People are under quite a few misconceptions as to our 'universal' care. Hearing aids are not funded in any way shape or form.

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.

But they don't. Do you believe someone should be able to be married to as many people as they want?

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

So if I were an atheist my arguments would be automatically stronger? I supported gay marriage when I was a Christian, and my beliefs have changed.

[Ben Kenobi]

I should like to think that unlike certain others who recently posted (ahem), you're a good guy who basically means what he says. I'd just wish you would pay more attention to what I'm saying and reply to that - rather than stray away from the stuff that you cannot or will not answer.

Well, I beg your forgiveness and I apologise. I thought you were alluding more towards Griswald, and I see now that I was on the wrong track.

[Monk]

And while I was typing that last note, you posted this. And Jesus Christ, Ben, (no pun intended), I can only conclude that either you feel you should stay away from the subjects at hand, or you honestly don't get what I'm saying.

I wouldn't support that specific regulation.

No, neither would I, or just about anybody we know. But that wasn't the question. Do you even recall what the fundamental question was?

I believe it's a part of freedom of association. You should be free to associate with whomever you want.

Yes, and once again you've said something that everybody obviously agrees with instead of delivering an answer to my point.

Come on and deal with the issue here. And if you won't or can't do that, stop pretending you want to have a discussion and instead officially join the ranks of ordinary trolls.

[Ming]

The government discourages it through taxation, (increased insurance premiums, which are mandatory, and purchased from the government), and through graduated licensing, which poses increased restrictions that are not present on other drivers. Is this really the model of marriage you want to see for gay marriage?

Irrelevent... The government allows them to drive knowing there is a higher risk. The percentages of accidents is far higher than your "gays are unhealthy" numbers from an anti gay site.
So your unhealthy argument is still toasty.

Then why shouldn't the governments conduct health examinations of married couples, that are both unexpected and unplanned? Again, the model doesn't work wrt to marriage.

Irrelevent... The government is allowing people to make the choice of unhealthy behavior by allowing fast food places.
So your unhealthy argument is still toasty.

Where the government uses taxation to discourage what they see as unhealthy behaviour.

Irrelevent... It's still not against the law to smoke... the government allows people to make an unheathly choice.
So your unhealthy argument is still toasty.

They do not endorse them. Allowing gay marriage is not simply the government refusing to intervene, rather it is the public endorsement of gay marriage. You are asking the government to act in a way to regulate and support gay marriage. It would be akin to seeing public commercials encouraging people to smoke, paid for by the government.

BS... Who is talking about commercials... the government allows smoking... they don't endorse it. The same would be true for gay marriages... simply giving people the right to make their own choice.
Your argument fails yet again.

Both of these arguments are equally applicable to polygamy, Ming. Yet, maintaining the definition of one man and one woman is advantageous to the purposes of the state to maintain order.

That they are... so what? Even though they are totally different arguments, I have no problem with either due to freedom of choice that doesn't hurt others.

They are asking for a right that does not currently exist. I cannot marry a man, even though I am straight.

More BS... you can marry who you love, that's all gays are asking for... the same basic right.
Another flawed argument.

But they don't. Do you believe someone should be able to be married to as many people as they want?

Yep... if they are consenting adults, and they all love each other... why not.
Again, in many cultures, this is acceptable.


So as always, you have no real arguments. No surprise here. None of your arguments have ever held up. The only valid argument you have is that it's against your beliefs... and frankly, I don't think you have the right to cram your beliefs down others peoples throats.

So try again Ben... you will keep making no sense and have no real arguments.

[Drake Tungsten]

Finally - I got you to admit the truth of how you really feel about equal marriage rights for gays. You're opposed to it.

This is lame, even from you.

[Berzerker]

So people who supported/advocated for equal marriage protection for interracial couples in 1960s had to also support legal polygamous marriage in order not to be branded as hypocrites?

its a matter of credibility, consistency is better than the appearance of a double standard. But why dont gays support legalized polygamy? Seems so obvious to me, if yer arguing marriage for consenting adults, there is no moral or ethical reason to deny this for polygamists.

I can see how white supremacists in 1960s could have used the fear of polygamy to argue against legal interracial marriages.

Not really, many were polygamists and polygamy was not the bugaboo as black men and white women. Now the slippery slope toward polygamy is used against gay marriage because polygamy is or has become a bigger bugaboo and homosexuality has become less so.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

The problem is that your argument doesn't work here. I am arguing that there is a third option that you've not even considered.

The reason why the two are treated differently, I would argue is because kissing, holding hands in public is freedom of association. It's not an 'extension' of the right, or a special right, because it's a fundamental part of freedom of association. If you were to take that away, it wouldn't be freedom of association anymore.

Marriage on the other hand is not fundamentally about, 'marrying whomever you feel attracted to.' It's quite the opposite. If marriage was about marrying whomever you were attracted to, it would not be limited to just one person, nor would there be any need for marriage at all. It is a special right to demand that marriage be extended, because it benefits the fringe, and is not fundamental to marriage, in the way that your example is to freedom of association.

[Berzerker]

marriage is about marrying someone you find un-attractive? Freedom of association but not for gays. Rights dont protect "the fringe"? For most of our history polygamy was widespread and the "need" for marriage didn't disappear during that time.

edit: human history, not US

[Ben Kenobi]

Irrelevent... The government allows them to drive knowing there is a higher risk. The percentages of accidents is far higher than your "gays are unhealthy" numbers from an anti gay site.
So your unhealthy argument is still toasty.

The government actively discourages it through increased taxation. Are you saying gay couples should be able to get married, only if they pay higher taxes to compensate the state?

And I've not even posted the numbers yet, and you already know they are biased and from an 'anti-gay' site?

Tough crowd!

Irrelevent... The government is allowing people to make the choice of unhealthy behavior by allowing fast food places.

Only under inspection by the authorities. Would you permit gay people to be married, so long as they had to undergo random inspections to ensure their health was maintained to an acceptable level?

Irrelevent... It's still not against the law to smoke... the government allows people to make an unheathly choice.

So gay people should be allowed to marry, if you double their sales taxes?

BS... Who is talking about commercials... the government allows smoking... they don't endorse it. The same would be true for gay marriages... simply giving people the right to make their own choice.
Your argument fails yet again.

They already have the right to sleep with whomever they want. The government does have a role in marriage, which is the whole point of marriage licenses. In issuing marriage licenses they are endorsing a relationship. That is the argument all along for 'acceptance' of gay marriage. They see it as persecution to be denied a license, and they want their relationships to be seen on par with marriage.

What they want is endorsement of an unhealthy lifestyle, no different then government sponsored 'Camel' ads.

More BS... you can marry who you love, that's all gays are asking for... the same basic right.
Another flawed argument.

I don't believe you really believe that.

Yep... if they are consenting adults, and they all love each other... why not.
Again, in many cultures, this is acceptable.

So I could marry your wife, with your blessing? Cool, thanks Ming.

[Q Classic]

So if I were an atheist my arguments would be automatically stronger? I supported gay marriage when I was a Christian, and my beliefs have changed.

You're still Christian, actually.

Also, I'd like to see the studies that you're basing your comments of unhealthiness on.

[Q Classic]

So I could marry your wife, with your blessing? Cool, thanks Ming.

Actually, no, since you'd still have to have her consent.

Which, frankly, knowing you, doesn't seem likely.

[Berzerker]

btw, yer welcome Ben

lost track of that thread so this one will do