DescentBB

Consider the following:

"I'm for a man's right to keep slaves if he wishes; you can free yours, if you believe it's right, but don't go telling me what to do."

"I can't allow you to do that--the slaves you keep share the same right to freedom that you have."

"You may believe that, but I don't. We're not doing any harm to each other by each doing as we like."

Is the slaveowner doing harm to the abolitionist? Or is the abolitionist doing harm to the slaveowner? Neither is hurting each other, physically or economically--they're just arguing. But look a little closer: each would like the other to be trapped in a world he sees as injust. The slaveowner would like the abolitionist to live in a country where people are oppressed and enslaved--to live in a world the abolitionist sees as intolerably unjust. The abolitionist would like the slaveowner to live in a world where the government can keep him from keeping slaves--something the slaveowner sees as intolerably repressive.

What they're fighting over is justice. Since they disagree over what is just, each is trying to force the other to live in a country that--from his perspective--condones injustice.

What is just is not the sort of thing that everyone agrees on, and it's not the sort of thing that a country can be neutral on. Necessarily things are either outlawed or condoned, and such moral values are the common heart of a culture.

To stand for one moral value is always to stand against others. The slaveowner stands for his own freedom to choose on the issue of slavery, but he necessarily stands against universal human freedom. The abolitionist stands for and against the opposite things--he stands for universal freedom at the cost of asking the government declare a morality the slaveowner doesn't endorse. Freedom to choose always stands opposed to the freedom to live in a culture that has chosen. The anarchist stands against the right to property, because he is not willing to make stealing illegal; that's what a "right to property" looks like in law.

Opposed views of justice annihilate each other. People following them may live, physically, at peace with each other... but not always. This is the sort of thing that wars and revolutions are fought over. People die for justice.

We have such opposed views of justice on a lot of political issues today. Take abortion. One side fights for the right to choose, and the other fights for everyone's right to life. One side wants everyone to have to live in a country where women are forced to carry their babies to term; the other wants everyone to have to live in a country here children are daily killed. At stake is who, exactly, counts as human. That's no small thing. Someone is going to have to live in a country where intolerable injustice goes on.

Take affirmative action. One side wants to see the injustices of the past remedied, and feels society owes it to some. The other wants to see equality--judgement based on character, not color--today. If one side wins, the other will automatically have to live in a world they percieve as badly unjust. At stake is what "all men are created equal" really means. Both sides are standing for a particular idea of equality, and against a particular other idea of equality.

I could go on. Some political differences are caused by simple misinformation--that is, some people simply have their facts wrong. (For example, people simply disagree on whether the absence of expected WMD in Iraq is due to effective deception by Saddam or Bush--that is, there is a factual agreement about the president's motivation. Somebody's gotta have their facts wrong.) But even when all the facts are agreed upon, there's still a lot of disagreement left. Often people simply have irreconcilable standards of justice. Those come from competing views. They come from competing values that they think the country should stand for. At stake is who we are as a people.

Gay marriage can be expressed this way. If you will forgive me the indulgence, let me talk a little bit about how the conservative sees this issue. (I try to be as evenhanded as I can in these metaposts, but the other side of this issue is quite unfamiliar to some, so I feel I need to explain.)

Meaning comes from exclusion as well as inclusion. Let me illustrate with a less charged idea. Suppose I define the idea of "science" -- the method of learning about the natural world by rational observation, deduction, and experiment. Suppose I think that science is something worthwhile, and I start a foundation to support it. What happens if the definition broadens? If my foundation decides that "science" is defined by the individual discipline, and anyone who wants to call themselves a scientist is one, then the meaning departs from the term. If I want my foundation to defend and support science, it has to be willing to exclude and judge. The meaning comes from the intelligent exclusion.

The conservative fear in the gay marriage debate isn't a fear of homosexuality, or even a fear of homosexual marriage, exactly. It's the fear of living in a society where marriage means everything, and so means nothing. A soceity that wants to defend an idea of marriage has to be a society willing to exclude certain relationships as marriages. And the conservative senses that the gay marriage advocates aren't truly willing to exclude anyone. That is, they don't stand for an idea of marriage from which they will demand that the govermnent exclude others--they stand for marriage defined by the individual. A marriage that can mean anything to anyone means nothing to everyone. That is what the fight is about.

I have heard no good, alternative definition of marriage that includes gay marriage that anyone is willing to take a principled stand for. This is the debate that needs to happen--which pieces of marriage are essential? Commitment? Love? Two people? Husband, wife? Children? Shared property? Permanence? Could two men and three women and a dog all mutually proclaim love for each other and be married? This is not a wide-eyed slippery slope argument; this is asking where people think the line should be. What marriage means to you--what marriage means to this culture--is defined by who we are willing to include, who we are willing to exclude, and especially, especially, especially why.

So return to the gay marriage debate. Half the world sees things they count as marriages--loving, committed couples--unable to marry. To them, that's injustice. And half the world sees things they don't consider marriages--no husband or wife--marrying. Like the government grant endorsing pseudoscience, it's a step closer to destroying the real thing.

People so often think, naively, that the only freedoms in the world are freedoms to do what you want. But that's only half the picture; a whole host of other freedoms come from depriving other people of the ability to do what they want--that is, they're freedoms to live in a certain world. We have the freedom to have good conversations here precisely because we deny others the freedom to post spam. We think the discussions we have here are valuable, and we'll fight to defend them. That's a freedom that's based on exclusion.

Freedom to do what you want has one sort of cost--the cost of keeping the government from interfering. Freedom to live in a particular sort of society, to define what that society is, has another sort of cost--the cost of excluting alternative definitions. Neither of these is cheap. Unless you're historically very lucky, war is the price of freedom, war is the price of peace, and war is the price of defining who a people are.

[first of all, your slave illustration is easy answered: the oppressing of either of your 2 partys is irrespective to the much greater oppression of the slave herself. the answer is to free her. it's logical. this means that instead of 2 ppl being oppressed (one greatly so) only one is - the slaveowner. his small anguish is nothing to the slave's angish]

drak, ppl who have never heard of christianity get married. some of their marriages are different, some are quite similar to your beliefs.

your government/religion can't claiming invention/ownership of the original marriage idea, as may be elluded in your "i defined/invented science" illustration.

in your holy book it may state that your religion invented marriage. but almost EVERYONE'S holy book could say the same thing about their respective religions (it wouldn't surprise me):lol:, it wouldn't matter.

all you have done in your post is defined why marriage is important to you, in your own religious setting. other people can get along with one another without excluding YOU from their lives (unless you do it to them). why don't you just do the same.

unless you respect other's beliefs, others will refuse to respect yours - as protest. this may be the anti-christianity vibe you sometimes feel.

roid wrote:[first of all, your slave illustration is easy answered: the oppressing of either of your 2 partys is irrespective to the much greater oppression of the slave herself. the answer is to free her. it's logical. this means that instead of 2 ppl being oppressed (one greatly so) only one is - the slaveowner. his small anguish is nothing to the slave's angish]

Right... the example is meant as illustration, not as argument. It's easy for us to answer just by brushing off -- "freedom from slavery" trumps "freedom to own slaves" by so much that we laugh at anyone who thinks otherwise. But the point is, in most cases, what we're talking about is an exchange of one freedom for another, where one party or another will necessarily feel like they've been screwed. One or the other will necessarily feel like they're being forced to live in an unjust world.

In this particular case, people from the pro-gay-marriage side don't seem to understand that in the slightest. They see those who oppose them as horrible religious bigots who hate gay people (which, granted, might be where the guy who wrote the original article was coming from.) Very few even take the time to try to understand our objections. You sure didn't.

ppl who have never heard of christianity get married.

Nowhere in her post did she even reference Christianity. Nowhere did she argue that the issue should be viewed religiously. You badly misunderstood, probably based on your own preconceptions, and then pretended (based on your misunderstanding) that she was disrespecting others' viewponts. (Seriously, out of all the people on this board, she's the most likely to respect opposing viewpoints even if she adamantly disagrees with them.)

All she did is gave the argument from both sides, and then asked a question nobody wants to answer. One side sees two people who love each other who are not able to get married, and sees that as unjust. The other side sees people changing marriage from what it's been for thousands of years in every culture into something different based on vague principles. They see this as taking what has been a very important part of every society in history and changing it on a whim.

When I say "on a whim" or "vague principles", I'm referencing the same thing Drakona was talking about when she said "I have heard no good, alternative definition of marriage that includes gay marriage that anyone is willing to take a principled stand for." Just as an example: on another board where this was discussed several years ago, I asked the question "what should marriage be, and why?" Nobody on the other side ever tried to answer. Eventually I gave my own definition and reasoning, and then the main guy on the other side just took my definition and removed all references to people being opposite sex. It made him feel very proud that he was able to use my definition against me... but all it told me is that he didn't have a clear idea about what marriage was except that whatever anybody else says it is, he'd allow it for same-sex couples too. It confirmed my suspicions -- that he didn't *have* a principled definition of marriage.

In order to convince anybody, you have to understand their side. Neither that guy, nor most of you, ever understood our side -- over and over again, in discussions with me, people keep telling me I'm trying to impose theocracy or I'm trying to claim my religion invented marriage or that I'm being a horrible bigot because I dare exclude a particular type of relationship from being called "marriage" (even though they can't give me good reason for excluding, say, brothers and sisters, or multiple people.) But look back at the question Drakona posed:

which pieces of marriage are essential? Commitment? Love? Two people? Husband, wife? Children? Shared property? Permanence? Could two men and three women and a dog all mutually proclaim love for each other and be married? This is not a wide-eyed slippery slope argument; this is asking where people think the line should be. What marriage means to you--what marriage means to this culture--is defined by who we are willing to include, who we are willing to exclude, and especially, especially, especially why.

I'm still waiting for someone from the other side to give a definition deeper than "when two people love each other..." That's the kind of definition you give to a four-year-old. I'm waiting for someone to put more than 30 seconds of thought into answering:
1) what things are essential for a marriage?
2) why are these things essential for a marriage?
3) why should the government grant benefits and/or penalties for this relationship, and what should those benefits/penalties be?
4) which of these benefits should be limited specifically to this relationship, and which should be granted to relationships that don't meet all of the requirements your answer to #1?

One reason I include questions #3 and 4 is because people tend to put the cart before the horse here. They tend to start with the assumption that married people are granted benefits, and then argue that all couples who love each other should be granted those benefits. That argument is all well and good, but it's not really an argument about marriage, it's an argument about benefits that can be made completely independently of the argument about marriage. Many people on this side will concede that completely (which should tell you, among other things, that we're not in it to oppress people!) What we're looking for isn't an argument about why people should have the same government benefits, what we're looking for is a good discussion of what marriage is and should be.

The questions I asked form the basis for a debate that needs to happen... it needs to be a part of the dialogue across the nation and across the world. It needs to be a part of the cultural decision-making process. People on both sides need to understand what principles and ideas the other side has relating to marriage, and they need to think through their own ideas a lot more than most seem to have.

Now, I'm not saying the debate has to happen right now in this thread. In fact, if you're working on answering those questions right now, stop typing, and save what you've written for use in another thread. What I'm saying right now is that you need to understand that there is a debate to be had, and that accusations of bigotry and religious bias are only going to alienate those you're trying to convince. If your position requires you to think me and Drakona are horrible intolerant uncaring bigots, that should be a flashing neon sign that says "you're missing something." And, chances are, the something you're missing is the whole debate over what marriage fundamentally is and should be.

The anarchist stands against the right to property, because he is not willing to make stealing illegal; that's what a "right to property" looks like in law

I think you misunderstand real anarachists. Some want chaos, but others just don't agree with the concept that land can be owned, and that someone else can tell them what to do. For many it is not about the want to carry out immoral acts, but rather frustration with the modern societal system.

Meaning comes from exclusion as well as inclusion. Let me illustrate with a less charged idea. Suppose I define the idea of "science" -- the method of learning about the natural world by rational observation, deduction, and experiment. Suppose I think that science is something worthwhile, and I start a foundation to support it. What happens if the definition broadens? If my foundation decides that "science" is defined by the individual discipline, and anyone who wants to call themselves a scientist is one, then the meaning departs from the term.

Not a valid analogy. Gays aren't perverting the methodology of marriage. Rather they simply want to do as straight couples do: Commit to relationships with a person they love. Start a life together; be allowed in the hospital as a visitor when they should be as their loved-one dies; enjoy the same financial benefits as others.

I can understand if you don't want gays to have the same label, 'marriage' because it has a religious and moral connotation for you. I can even understand not wanting to allow them to adopt. But you must allow them to be have some sort of legally recognized union. Because their union is not what your bible tells you (I know you haven't brought up the bible, but so far it is the elephant in the room; we all know the bible has a gigantic influence on you, one that I'd argue dominates any logical conclusion made on your own. Hell if I thought god meant everything in the bible I'd be following it too!). Many of these unions turn out far more beatiful than straight relationships. Long-term committments until death. That type of love is, to me, what marriage is really about. Two people committing their lives to each other, forever.

The conservative fear in the gay marriage debate isn't a fear of homosexuality, or even a fear of homosexual marriage, exactly.

While you may believe this, I think the conservative mass IS afraid of homosexuality. I think naturally, evolutionarily, we are pre-disposed to dis-approve of homosexuality. This to me is similar to the primal prejudice many have against a black man marrying a black woman. The father of the woman thinks it is disgusting, as he cannot relate to the black man who is so culturally and physically different from him. Primally, he is from a 'different tribe'.

Of course, that is an incomplete analogy, and there really is not a complete analogy we will find. I understand what Barry says about 'round peg in a square hole' -- he is exactly right. Evolutionary it just doesn't make sense.

It's the fear of living in a society where marriage means everything, and so means nothing.

C'mon, you are mathmatician. I'm not trying to be rude here, but even you should know that is poor logic. How are heterosexual marriages meaningless because our society technically recognizes them? Your bible still doesn't approve. Much of our culture still doesn't approve. Is the meaning of marriage hanging on state approval, or your own internal philosophical convictions? If gays married, would you love Lothar any less?

Conservatives can still teach their children that homosexuality is wrong. Conservatives can still marry happily. The beauty of heterosexual marriages are not diminished by homosexual ones. If they are legal you can still teach homosexuality is wrong to your children.

This is similar to people saying we can't legalize drugs because then people will think society condones it. Not true at all. It's legal to cheat on your husband or wife, a bigger crime to me than stealing, lying, doing drugs, or many other offenses to me that are minor, but we as a society frown upon it. I don't think laws have to decide the moral
fabric of our society -- our culture should.

America is a big tent full of conflicting viewpoints What we do offer is the ability for individuals to make choices, moral and immoral.

A marriage that can mean anything to anyone means nothing to everyone.

Again, I am astounded by the logical flaw. Allowing gays to marry *does not* make marriage mean anything to anyone. I'll expand further below:

This is not a wide-eyed slippery slope argument; this is asking where people think the line should be. What marriage means to you--what marriage means to this culture--is defined by who we are willing to include, who we are willing to exclude, and especially, especially, especially why.

Marriage is the committment of two (and no more) human beings (no animals) to live their life together in love. It is that simple for me.

I feel like the argument that 'if we let gays marry, anyone will be able to. What's next, a dog and a woman?' is a weak one conservatives cling to. More than anything these stable, happy gay relationships, deserve equal rights under the law. Dogs are not getting married any time soon. Please.

But that's only half the picture; a whole host of other freedoms come from depriving other people of the ability to do what they want--that is, they're freedoms to live in a certain world.

That deprivation refers to other people doings things that harm you. Gay marriage is victimless.

So before I keep going much further I need to know -- are you opposed to even allowing a 'civil union' that gives identical privelages but is not called marriage? Because the argument then is very different.

But that's only half the picture; a whole host of other freedoms come from depriving other people of the ability to do what they want--that is, they're freedoms to live in a certain world.

Forgive me, but you have not stated how your life is hurt by gays being married. How is your marriage and your life hurt if they marry? How is your life so worse off?

1) what things are essential for a marriage?
2) why are these things essential for a marriage?
3) why should the government grant benefits and/or penalties for this relationship, and what should those benefits/penalties be?
4) which of these benefits should be limited specifically to this relationship, and which should be granted to relationships that don't meet all of the requirements your answer to #1?

1) 2 (no more) human beings (not aniamsl) committed to each other for life

2 & 3) They are based on a natural human proclivity to to create life long pair bonds. Most humans are naturally inclined to seek a life long committed partner. Some people, gay people, (I almost look at them as handicapped in some ways. If I could turn off a gay gene, I certainly would -- it's a frustrating situation to be stuck in. I certainly didn't choose to have fireworks be set off next to an attractive woman, and I doubt anyone can *Force* those fireworks to be set off. It's a natural thing. Pre-programmed) also have the same natural desire as most humans do: a life long committed pair bond. Unfortunately, they sort of have their wires crossed. Evolutionarily, they don't make sense. They are a 'dead end'. But in our society we don't spit on the disabled, we have compassion for them. It really comes down to whether you think gays choose. I don't think they do, and you do. I don't know how we can make any progress in this debate, unfortunately. Since I think they are hard-wired this way (that is, not someone who has a fleetin bisexual experiment, but someone who has a life long partner) and as such they are just trying to carry out their natural biological feelings: to bond with the sex they are hard wired to. Of course a man and a woman is the natural, optimal situation. But gays are like disabled people -- they'd love to fit into society exactly, but without a little help and compassion they cannot.

I see two men kissing, and I find the idea repugnant. Gross. I also look at someone deformed by retardation, and I am just as disgusted. But in both situations I have compassion for both parties because they are stuck in a difficult situation they will never get out of. Trust me, being gay is not fun -- I don't know why anyone would choose to be. Maybe 1% do it as a trendy thing, but for most they always say they knew, psychiatrists long have talked about how gays will act non-gender appropriate in many facets even as toddlers. They would give anything to be straight, to live a normal life, and to avoid ridicule. But they can't. The fireworks for them go off in the wrong direction. It's sad, too bad... it should not be ridiculed condition, but one which we have ample compassion.

Therefore the government should at least give them equal protection and financial recognition. They are already one chip down in life, really it's the least we can do for someone stuck in such an unlucky state.

4) Can't quite follow, rephrase.

Question for you: If gays are hard-wired gay, does that change your stance?

I know you believe gays choose, and that's why this whole argument may be pointless.

I think the Bible is really the elephant in the room. When we were intolerant of other races, there was no dominant religious book that prevented people from changing their minds about black people. Unfortunately for gays, even if we prove they are hard wired (and thus you'd think people's compassion would explode) the dominant religious book in the USA still says it is wrong.

I often feel arguing with conservatives that they come up with their argument *because* the bible says something.

I mean as a Christian can you really go against the bible? Is there any reason for me to argue with you? At the end of the day your book still says its wrong, and to you that is your direct word from god. Many conservatives are devout christians so I understand why they have the viewpoint they do. If I believed in this book as god's word, I'd follow it to.

Arguing with christians feels pointless. Even if we prove being gay is not a choice, the bible doesn't change, so neither will their viewpoint.

So to me the big questions in this debate boil down to:

1) Do you think being gay is a choice?

2) Would you ever go against god's word in the bible? Is it possible that any argument could be made that would convince you against something that bible says, such as on this issue?

Becuase if #2 is true (and I think it is) the debate his little if no value.

I know that just because #2 is probably true doesn't mean you don't have a logical argument... but I feel as if for most people their biblical clingings come first, *THEN* they cling to popular anti-gay arguments. The bible tells me X, so I agree with arguments for X.

While drakona made a great point in one view birds made an equally interesting reply and while i understand that most homosexual groups push towards "equality" they are just trying to force their mindset into the american publics eye, Example you have five people in a room debating and there is two particular people engaged in a debate between two idea's one is pro-gay,While the other is on the straight side, while most people are blinded by their own viewpoints that they cant see the other sides view on the matter some people, look at it from both sides as such seemed drakona's questioning, yet birdseye brought up a few good questions as well i think the most interesting one is "Forgive me, but you have not stated how your life is hurt by gays being married. How is your marriage and your life hurt if they marry? How is your life so worse off?" The point i believe they are trying to push is not HOW theyre lives are hurt or damaged by allowing the government to recognize gays as equal marriage potentials but was standing from a view that if they allow gays to be married (something most people such as yourself look down upon) then they open themselves to making other things that most people look down upon legal and quite regular,As if trying to force on american society what we can and cannot choose to accept in our own culture.
Im not completly sure but from what i can think of is that most cultures around the world really havent had as much arguing over this subject more then the american society because we are supposed to be a free nation, one with many ideals and pursuits to a free life of our choice, so the very fabric of democracy seems to be choose your life and live it in happiness,Well that SOUNDS good and since it is what the country itself is founded upon the government would most certainly HAVE to look at it from that standpoint. Most christian views come right from the fact that the bible says it is wrong and not even a subject to deal with, but as such is the fact that i live in america i also believe we have to talk about things like this especially since it *obviously* affects peoples lives, otherwise they wouldnt argue so passionatly for their cause.

The point i believe they are trying to push is not HOW theyre lives are hurt or damaged

Yeah, F the civil rights movement. Screw them for pushing their agenda on us!!!

You seem to have skipped the part where I said "if you're working on answering those questions right now, stop typing, and save what you've written for use in another thread."

Honestly... right now, I don't want to bother discussing the questions, nor do I have the time. All I want to do is point out that the questions are the key to the debate (at least from the conservative side) and that those on the other side have to understand that before they'll ever make any influence whatsoever on us. Talking about equal rights, religion, or bigotry will NOT get you anywhere; you (and the culture as a whole) must address the question of what marriage is and why we care about it.

Birdseye wrote:

Meaning comes from exclusion as well as inclusion. Let me illustrate with a less charged idea. Suppose I define the idea of "science" -- the method of learning about the natural world by rational observation, deduction, and experiment. Suppose I think that science is something worthwhile, and I start a foundation to support it. What happens if the definition broadens? If my foundation decides that "science" is defined by the individual discipline, and anyone who wants to call themselves a scientist is one, then the meaning departs from the term.

Not a valid analogy. Gays aren't perverting the methodology of marriage. Rather they simply want to do as straight couples do: Commit to relationships with a person they love.

Where did she say "perverting the methodology of marriage"? You're arguing against a phantom.

The point is not that they're "perverting" anything, the point is that the meaning of the word is important and that changing the meaning is not something to be taken lightly.

I can understand if you don't want gays to have the same label, 'marriage' because it has a religious and moral connotation for you.

Always going back to the religious/moral phantom argument. Always going back to accusations that we're not being honest. Birds, one of our fundamental rules for debate is that we always give our real reasons for the positions we hold. If I didn't say "religious and moral connotation", it's not a significant part of my reasoning. (As I've said before, I'm not interested in making people who aren't Christians behave like they are.)

My own position isn't even really an active desire to keep them from having the label... it's just a desire to have the debate and actually decide it as a culture. Let's decide what marriage means to us, and then label relationships accordingly. Let's not have the legal system hand us a definition, or have people bully us into using their definition because they called us "bigots".

The conservative fear in the gay marriage debate isn't a fear of homosexuality, or even a fear of homosexual marriage, exactly.

While you may believe this, I think the conservative mass IS afraid of homosexuality.

You always have to separate the masses from the idealogues. The conservative fear, among people who are real conservatives and not just I-vote-Republican-cuz-mommy-said-to conservatives, is exactly what she said. Read the articles that come out in places like the Wall Street Journal.

It's the fear of living in a society where marriage means everything, and so means nothing.

C'mon, you are mathmatician. I'm not trying to be rude here, but even you should know that is poor logic.

Rule #1 for debating with Drakona:

If you think she's engaging in poor logic, it means you misunderstood her.

How are heterosexual marriages meaningless because our society technically recognizes them?... Is the meaning of marriage hanging on state approval, or your own internal philosophical convictions?.... The beauty of heterosexual marriages are not diminished by homosexual ones. If they are legal...

It's not a question of "if gay unions are legal". It's a question of "if it makes grammatical sense to refer to them as marriage".

The fear I see in almost every conservative article and discussion I've seen is that, essentially, people are trying to change the definition of marriage on a whim and without understanding why people care about marriage in the first place. It's not a fear of gay marriage in particular, but a fear of mucking around with the definition of marriage in general (and allowing same-sex relationships just happens to be the specific mucking around that people want to do.) See, for example, this post and the (very long) essay it links to.

I don't think laws have to decide the moral
fabric of our society -- our culture should.

That's exactly what we're saying!

Culture needs to have this debate. We don't need the courts to hand down a definition, we need the culture to collectively decide "OK, this is what marriage means, this is who is eligible, and this is how the government should interact."

The right place to start is to talk about what marriage is. Not to talk about how you could slightly change the current system in order to include same-sex couples, but to talk about the whole institution...

Allowing gays to marry *does not* make marriage mean anything to anyone.

No -- but changing the definition, or telling people that they can keep one definition while you use another, does. Changing the definition through judicial action, such that it's different in different states, makes marriage into a fuzzy concept, which means it loses meaning.

I feel like the argument that 'if we let gays marry, anyone will be able to. What's next, a dog and a woman?' is a weak one conservatives cling to.

If they keep clinging to it, maybe that means it's stronger than you think, but that you misunderstand it.

You understand the argument as saying "if we include gays, well, they're such an abomination that we may as well include animals too. Those darn corrupt homos." But that's not the argument at all. The argument is "if we muck with the definition and change it lightly, who knows where it will lead? If people don't have solid principles on which to base their definition of marriage, who knows what sort of wacky definitions they might create?"

But that's only half the picture; a whole host of other freedoms come from depriving other people of the ability to do what they want--that is, they're freedoms to live in a certain world.

That deprivation refers to other people doings things that harm you. Gay marriage is victimless.

It always depends on your definition of "harm" or "deprivation". From a philosophical standpoint, any freedom granted to one person necessarily requires that someone else not have the freedom to live in a world where that isn't done. Take, for example, porn -- your freedom to view porn means I don't have the freedom to live in a world where porn doesn't exist. Or, someone's freedom to smoke necessarily means I don't have the freedom to live in a smoke-free environment. This is logically necessary.

The point of this post wasn't to say HOW gay marriages might cause noticeable harm that you would agree to call harm. It was only to point out that whenever you declare one freedom, you necessarily restrict people in a related way.

It really comes down to whether you think gays choose.

The question of what benefits are given MIGHT come down to whether you think gays choose (depending on your reasoning behind why married couples are granted benefits.) The question of the definition of marriage does not. That's why I listed the questions in the order I did -- "what is marriage" and "what benefits should be given to various relationships" can be answered separately.

So, to answer your question: if gays are hard-wired that way, that wouldn't change anything about the definition of marriage. It may or may not change what benefits the government wants to give out, depending on their reasoning behind giving such benefits. If they're meant to encourage childbearing, then I can't see why gays would get those benefits either way; if they're meant to encourage long-term stability, then maybe. For most benefits, I don't think it matters, but there may perhaps be some where my reasoning would change.

That's why the questions need asked. That's what society needs to decide -- what is marriage, and why do we give benefits to married people?

4) Can't quite follow, rephrase.

Let me give you the logical flow of my statements again:

1) what is marriage? (What things are essential for something to be a marriage?)
2) why are those things required?
3) given your answers to #1 and #2, what benefits should the government give to married people, and why?
4) given your reasoning in #3, should some or all of those benefits also be given to people who aren't married (by your definition #1) but are in other types of relationships (such as same-sex if it doesn't meet your answer to #1, parent-child, roommates, etc.)?

The main point of question 4 is that it shows that "what is marriage" and "what benefits should people get" aren't the same question. If you list a benefit in #3 because "it encourages raising children" then it should be given to anyone raising children, married or not. If you list a benefit in #3 because "it encourages long-term stability" then it should be given to any couple society wants to be stable long-term, married or not.

I think the Bible is really the elephant in the room.... At the end of the day your book still says its wrong.

But my book doesn't say the US government is Christian, or that the culture of the US will treat things the Bible calls sin as sinful, so I don't see where the problem is. If you were trying to convince me it wasn't a sin, it would be a pointless discussion -- but if you're trying to talk about what marriage should be, or what benefits should be given to couples in various relationships (regardless of what we call those relationships), there's plenty of reason to have that discussion.

I wouldn't ask the questions if the discussion was pointless. I ask them because I think the discussion is of very high importance for this culture. The discussion has to happen, and whether or not each of us personally is convinced, the culture as a whole needs to decide one way or another.

The questions you ask don't really matter much. Is being gay a choice? I don't see how that matters at all for the questions I listed. Would I go against the Bible? If it was wrong, I would -- but, again, I don't see how that matters, since the Bible doesn't govern the USA.

What we need to do is get past all the accusations of bigotry, the loaded terminology, and the insistance on turning non-religious questions into religious questions (or accusations that others' religion supplies hidden motives), and have the discussion of what marriage is, as a culture. I don't mean we need to do it right this minute in this thread, and in fact I don't think we can yet. We can't have the discussion as long as people keep accusing others of being bigots or of lying about their motivations or of hating gays. That's the whole point of my posts here -- it's not about bigotry, religion, gay-hating, etc. But as long as people keep accusing others of those things, we're never going to have the productive discussion we need to have.

Summary statements:

1) We as a culture need to have the discussion "what is marriage"
2) We can't have that discussion as long as one side is calling the other side bigots and not listening to them
3) Once we've had that discussion, we can change the definition based on what culture decides -- but not until that point. Do not change definitions lightly.

You seem to have skipped the part where I said "if you're working on answering those questions right now, stop typing, and save what you've written for use in another thread.

Honestly... right now, I don't want to bother discussing the questions, nor do I have the time."

Don't post something to a public political BB and not expect someone to reply that is the whole point. If you want to bow out, that is certainly your choice.

The point is not that they're "perverting" anything, the point is that the meaning of the word is important and that changing the meaning is not something to be taken lightly.

Semantical.
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.

Always going back to the religious/moral phantom argument. Always going back to accusations that we're not being honest. Birds, one of our fundamental rules for debate is that we always give our real reasons for the positions we hold. If I didn't say "religious and moral connotation", it's not a significant part of my reasoning.

How is it phantom? If you argue with someone that believes something god told them, what is the chance of them changing their mind unless god convinces them otherwise? You and other christians sidestep this issue which is THE CORE of the entire issue.

By the way people almost NEVER are honest about the real reasons for the positions they hold. The truth is that it's not that they are lying, it's that they don't even *know* what the real reasons are. Their inner self latches on to an idea that is a moral pricinciple to them first, then they frequently select arguments that agree with them. EVERY person does this to some degree, it's not just you but ALSO ME. It is an incredibly hard thing to keep track of.

I mean how can you really say your religious view has nothing to do with this argument? Absolutely rediculous.

My own position isn't even really an active desire to keep them from having the label... it's just a desire to have the debate and actually decide it as a culture. Let's decide what marriage means to us, and then label relationships accordingly. Let's not have the legal system hand us a definition, or have people bully us into using their definition because they called us "bigots".

I'm not calling you a bigot, and I'm trying to have the discussion but you don't seem interested. YEs we need to decide what marriage means to us, but in the course of that discussion the elephant in the room is religion. It has a HUGE impact on what marriage means to us. Most people are married in a religious instituion. How can you remove religion from this debate?

You always have to separate the masses from the idealogues. The conservative fear, among people who are real conservatives and not just I-vote-Republican-cuz-mommy-said-to conservatives, is exactly what she said. Read the articles that come out in places like the Wall Street Journal.

I think you underestimate the number of people who have a knee-jerk aversion to homosexuality, similar to an aversion to seeing a retarded human.

Rule #1 for debating with Drakona:

If you think she's engaging in poor logic, it means you misunderstood her.

Logical fallacy. You are claiming her to not possibly have logical errors.

The fear I see in almost every conservative article and discussion I've seen is that, essentially, people are trying to change the definition of marriage on a whim and without understanding why people care about marriage in the first place. It's not a fear of gay marriage in particular, but a fear of mucking around with the definition of marriage in general (and allowing same-sex relationships just happens to be the specific mucking around that people want to do.) See, for example, this post and the (very long) essay it links to.

Oh come off it. I think that type of argument is just dancing away from the real issue, which is religious dogma and how it relates to homosexuals. See how you keep re-directing the argument from that important issue? I have defined what marriage means to me already.

So afraid of mucking up the definition of marriage? Well, maybe we can just include gays then, and nobody else? That's pretty simple. NOBODY else. 1 person with 1 person. There is your definition. No more mucking. No more loopholes. That's all we're asking for, we're not asking for all these bizarre exceptions you are referring to. The sky is not falling if gays get married. We can have a definition of marriage that includes gays without the whole marriage issue going haywire.

Changing the definition through judicial action, such that it's different in different states, makes marriage into a fuzzy concept, which means it loses meaning.

...no. It's not fuzzy at all. ONE PERSON COMMITTS TO ONE PERSON. NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS OR EXCLUSIONS. And the beauty in the love of committment is not diminished in the least.

The argument is "if we muck with the definition and change it lightly, who knows where it will lead? If people don't have solid principles on which to base their definition of marriage, who knows what sort of wacky definitions they might create?"

OK, then what is your doomsday scenario?
I don't consider this new definition wacky at all. It's quite simple and logical, and I have explained it perfectly through my analogy to the disabled.

It was only to point out that whenever you declare one freedom, you necessarily restrict people in a related way.

OK, fine, just like we took away the 'right' for southerners to hold slaves.

3) given your answers to #1 and #2, what benefits should the government give to married people, and why?
4) given your reasoning in #3, should some or all of those benefits also be given to people who aren't married (by your definition #1) but are in other types of relationships (such as same-sex if it doesn't meet your answer to #1, parent-child, roommates, etc.)?

Actually, I don't think married people should get ANY benefits. But since they do, I think it's important to include the committments of gays.

The questions you ask don't really matter much. Is being gay a choice? I don't see how that matters at all for the questions I listed. Would I go against the Bible? If it was wrong, I would -- but, again, I don't see how that matters, since the Bible doesn't govern the USA.

Heh, you say that but do you hold a single contrary belief to the bible?

I just can't believe that you propose us to FORGET about religion when it comes to marriage. They two are so intertwined, I am shocked. Most people's values regarding marriage are *shaped* by religion. That's why religion is so pertinent to this discussion. It's not a phantom argument--religion shapes peoples views on marriage, therefore if we are discussing what marriage is we end up also bringing up religion.

What we need to do is get past all the accusations of bigotry, the loaded terminology, and the insistance on turning non-religious questions into religious questions (or accusations that others' religion supplies hidden motives

Who is calling you a bigot? Does your book of worship have instructions on marriage? Do you follow these instructions on a daily basis? Are your views on marriage shaped at all by the bible, or are they not? The only way I can see the bible NOT being integral in this discussion is if you did not follow the bible's suggestions on marriage.

We can't have the discussion as long as people keep accusing others of being bigots or of lying about their motivations or of hating gays. That's the whole point of my posts here -- it's not about bigotry, religion, gay-hating, etc. But as long as people keep accusing others of those things, we're never going to have the productive discussion we need to have.

I'm certainly not calling anyone a gay hater, and I'm not accusing you of any sort of outright lying. What I think you are ignoring (or maybe forgetting) is how intertwined your faith is with your opinions. You think you can seperate faith from politics, but as a Christian you really cannot. So many of your moral beliefs come from the teachings of the bible and Jesus Christ.

Birdseye wrote:

The point i believe they are trying to push is not HOW theyre lives are hurt or damaged

Yeah, F the civil rights movement. Screw them for pushing their agenda on us!!!

I was reffering to what drakona and lothar were trying to explain, i can understand what you mean but the civil rights movement and gay citizens trying to redefine the concept of marriage which has been held up since the very begining of time are two very different things.....

Of course they are, but simply rattling sabres about people pushing agendas ignores whether the agenda is a good or bad one. Debate the argument, not whether 'people are pushing agendas on you'

The fact is there really shouldnt be too much to argue about, a debate is just people sharing views on a prticular subject... As such, i agree that before the government even thinks about having a say-so in whether they can obtain legal documentation seeing them as married individuals or eing in a union like marriage we certainly need to define what marriage is, besides two people who are commited in love because if its that broad or plain many many more people are already married without even actually having an agreed marriage and exchange of vows.

Also, keep in mind they ARE trying to push as much or even more so on us with theyre agenda as we are on them, so the fact that we do the same really doesnt hold weight against people like you trying to use that argument against us

*sorry about the messup*

It's the fear of living in a society where marriage means everything, and so means nothing.

We already live in a society where marriage means nothing, and everything.

Its wrong that in our society, having one partner be male and one partner be female, is a far far greater requirement for marriage then love.

In fact, love is optional for marriage. Having to have known each other for more then one day is optional. Being in an open relationship, is optional. Any kind of criminal record, is optional. *Even* a record for beating the person you are marrying! Banging the maid of honer on the day-of, is optional. Getting out of the car, is optional. Even being sober is optional in some states.

In fighting so hard to uphold the definition of marriage, they have so significantly trivialized it.

If it is really about the meaning of marriage, why doesn't 'the right' try and create any constitutional ammendments for these?

Canada passed a gay marriage law.

The answer to this whole debate will reveal itself soon.

Drakona, your illustration is poor, because in the case of slavery, "Natural Justice" must always apply. There's no argument about which position is right or wrong: because in the 21st century, we ALL know slavery is wrong.

The slave owner is simply ignorant of the last 150 years of moral progress humans have made. Therefore his argument is moot. He does not have any rights to own slaves. Simple.

The right to "impose laws" upon others is the right we grant government (or Parliament depending where you live) and we renew that right regularly. Persopns opposed to the law may break it, but they will be punished by "The People" (The Government).

First off I must applaude Birdy for being so loquacious. Far from his of late one or two line responses

1) what is marriage? (What things are essential for something to be a marriage?)

Marriage can only be defined from a cultures moreys. Typically marriage is a bonding between two or more individuals with the expressed intent of continuing the human race. We should not somehow confuse "partnering" with "marriage". All the associated verbage such as spousal rights is just so much urine in the wind established by lawyers.


2) why are those things required?

Simply put to create a atmosphere where children can be successfully created and reared to function within the culture.

3) given your answers to #1 and #2, what benefits should the government give to married people, and why?

Nothing. It is not govt. job to determine if a spouse should be given any benefits. Packaged benefits such as health care would be determined by cost and an employer and/or health insurance company willing to provide such.

4) given your reasoning in #3, should some or all of those benefits also be given to people who aren't married (by your definition #1) but are in other types of relationships (such as same-sex if it doesn't meet your answer to #1, parent-child, roommates, etc.)?

Read answer to number 3.

Birdseye wrote:(Taken out of context)Gays aren't perverting the methodology of marriage. Rather they simply want to do as straight couples do: Commit to relationships with a person they love. Start a life together; be allowed in the hospital as a visitor when they should be as their loved-one dies; enjoy the same financial benefits as others.

I can understand if you don't want gays to have the same label, 'marriage' because it has a religious and moral connotation for you. I can even understand not wanting to allow them to adopt. But you must allow them to be have some sort of legally recognized union.

Birdseye, you could not have said this better and its what I've always believed should happen.

Bettina

woodchip wrote:First off I must applaude Birdy for being so loquacious. Far from his of late one or two line responses

1) what is marriage? (What things are essential for something to be a marriage?)

Marriage can only be defined from a cultures moreys. Typically marriage is a bonding between two or more individuals with the expressed intent of continuing the human race. We should not somehow confuse "partnering" with "marriage". All the associated verbage such as spousal rights is just so much urine in the wind established by lawyers.


2) why are those things required?

Simply put to create a atmosphere where children can be successfully created and reared to function within the culture.

3) given your answers to #1 and #2, what benefits should the government give to married people, and why?

Nothing. It is not govt. job to determine if a spouse should be given any benefits. Packaged benefits such as health care would be determined by cost and an employer and/or health insurance company willing to provide such.

4) given your reasoning in #3, should some or all of those benefits also be given to people who aren't married (by your definition #1) but are in other types of relationships (such as same-sex if it doesn't meet your answer to #1, parent-child, roommates, etc.)?

Read answer to number 3.

Oh so RIGHT woodchip!, I was going to say this but you beat me to it the absolutely most foundational reasonings for a marriage is to rear children fit for society, I couldnt have said it better.

k, then please anwser my question, last sentence.

By the way people almost NEVER are honest about the real reasons for the positions they hold. The truth is that it's not that they are lying, it's that they don't even *know* what the real reasons are. Their inner self latches on to an idea that is a moral pricinciple to them first, then they frequently select arguments that agree with them. EVERY person does this to some degree, it's not just you but ALSO ME. It is an incredibly hard thing to keep track of.

*unlurk, overgeneralize*

BINGO. Hence the wisdom in recognizing that you might not know something, vs. the folly of certainty. Much more common to construct an essay around something you're already compelled to believe in (and are afraid isn't true), rather than to look for leaks in your own belief system. IMO, there is one "sin" in this world, blind faith. We all possess it to some degree.

Since Lothar has pulled out of the debate (Whooped! w00t) I'm wondering if there are any Christians who agree with him who can rebut me. I am flabbergasted that some Christians think that their religion does not factor into the gay marriage debate. I have a geniune curiousity and I would be interested in taking this discussion further.

Birdseye wrote:Since Lothar has pulled out of the debate

Lothar was out of town all weekend, and is moving in 2 weeks and busy packing... Birdseye should have read the "I'll be gone for a few days" post in the VIP forum...

Lothar wrote:I'm leaving for this weekend (July 8-11) for my little sister's wedding. Someone keep an eye on E&C, and smack down [unnamed problem user] if he does anything stupid.

I'm also moving on July 23, and I haven't yet figured out 'net access when I move. I'll try to have Comcast install right when I get there, but it might not be possible. I'll say more when the day gets closer...

Looking forward to a reply then!

I am flabbergasted that some Christians think that their religion does not factor into the gay marriage debate. I have a geniune curiousity and I would be interested in taking this discussion further.

If you believe in God, then what God wants, is what is right. And what is right, is what god wants.

One doesn't come from the other, (the two positions, not the big picture), or vice versa. Rather, they run side by side.

If Gay marriage is wrong on its own merit, then God is against it. And if God is against Gay marriage, it is because it is wrong on its own merit. So you can argue that Gay marriage is wrong entirely on its own merit.

God does not arbitrarily pick things to be against. Iâ??m sure Jesus wore white after labor day.

Even though they compliment each other, one does not influence the other.

Lothar has never, in the five or so years I've been arguing with him here, said, "because the Bible says so," or used the Bible to "win" an argument; even though, most of his view points agree with the Bible.

Gooberman wrote:

I am flabbergasted that some Christians think that their religion does not factor into the gay marriage debate. I have a geniune curiousity and I would be interested in taking this discussion further.

If you believe in God, then what God wants, is what is right. And what is right, is what god wants.

One doesn't come from the other, (the two positions, not the big picture), or vice versa. Rather, they run side by side.

If Gay marriage is wrong on its own merit, then God is against it. And if God is against Gay marriage, it is because it is wrong on its own merit. So you can argue that Gay marriage is wrong entirely on its own merit.

God does not arbitrarily pick things to be against. Iâ??m sure Jesus wore white after labor day.

Even though they compliment each other, one does not influence the other.

Lothar has never, in the five or so years I've been arguing with him here, said, "because the Bible says so," or used the Bible to "win" an argument; even though, most of his view points agree with the Bible.

Right!

I know I skimmed most of the stuff on here, but one thing I wanted to point out is, our nation was founded as a free nation, yes, but in what context? We were free from British rule, and most importantly, religious persecution(that's why we came to America in the first place). We did not say "we are free to sin and live life like Sodom and Gomorrah". I don't want America to be another country destroyed from within because of its horrible ethics. The reason we have risen to where we are is because of our moral ethics!

I could go on and on about the physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional problems with homosexuality, but I think everyone already knows. I find these 2 page long posts on homosexuality stupifying and pointless. Deep down everyone knows what is right and wrong, and even if they don't, God gave us a brain for a reason eh?

I could go on and on about the physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional problems with homosexuality, but I think everyone already knows.

Actually no, I do not.

likewise.

jesus freak you should start a new thread and educate us.

Jesus Freak wrote:I know I skimmed most of the stuff on here, but one thing I wanted to point out is, our nation was founded as a free nation, yes, but in what context? We were free from British rule, and most importantly, religious persecution(that's why we came to America in the first place). We did not say "we are free to sin and live life like Sodom and Gomorrah". I don't want America to be another country destroyed from within because of its horrible ethics. The reason we have risen to where we are is because of our moral ethics!

I could go on and on about the physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional problems with homosexuality, but I think everyone already knows. I find these 2 page long posts on homosexuality stupifying and pointless. Deep down everyone knows what is right and wrong, and even if they don't, God gave us a brain for a reason eh?

The gays and lesbians have a right to be as happy as you. They have a right as human beings to live as they wish, without persecution, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. They should have the same insurance and marriage rules as normal people. Why should anyone care if two men are living together. I don't.

Gays have been living together for years and most people never gave it a thought....except the church. (They should talk...giving they have pedophile priests...which I think is all of them.)

The problem with gays is that they want ACCEPTANCE. They want to be looked upon as normal and not only that, they want to adopt children. Thats what hurts them.

Adopting children is where I draw the line because to me it infringes on the rights of the child to have a "normal" family...a mother and father...Male and Female.

I don't consider gays and lesbians living together as immoral. Just the adopting part.

Bettina

up here the gay marrage act has passed and is now law.

the world didn't blow up.

no one divorced more than usual.

families didn't get destroyed.

the children are fine.

life went on.

but the fundies said something to the effect of: "The south shall rise again!"

Bet wrote:Adopting children is where I draw the line because to me it infringes on the rights of the child to have a "normal" family...a mother and father...Male and Female.

I don't consider gays and lesbians living together as immoral. Just the adopting part.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that a single person should be allowed to adopt a child?

Gooberman wrote:

Bet wrote:Adopting children is where I draw the line because to me it infringes on the rights of the child to have a "normal" family...a mother and father...Male and Female.

I don't consider gays and lesbians living together as immoral. Just the adopting part.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that a single person should be allowed to adopt a child?

If you mean single people who want to remain single because of some sexual hangup....No. What does that teach the child about family values.

Edit: That goes for people who adopt with the hopes of getting married later on too....

Bettina

In this discussion the issue is due to an unnatural phenomenon constituting a problem on a legal level. So, should the law be changed accordingly or shouldn't it?

Birds already pointed out that there is a distinction between law and morals. They are connected, but not neccessarily dependent on each other.

As far as I'm concerned, any moral issues aside, I see a legal discrepancy between hetero couples and homo couples, without a legal justification for that discrepancy. So legally, this discrepancy should be removed.

Now that this is clear, lets discuss the moral aspect of the issue. Personally, I have no problem with gay marriage. Some people do, and so far have given selfish or ego-centric arguments to defend their aversion of gay marriage. Just step up to another level, at society-wide level. The society as a whole, with all it's ethnic groups, with all it's diversity in religious beliefs and with all it's cultural diversity, would it benefit or be harmed by the moral consequences of the introduction of gay marriage? I think it wouldn't change, or benefit from it at best. But it wouldn't be worse in any case.

I ask people who continue to argue against gay marriage, to give global and universal arguments against it, not personal ones or ones proclaimed by a certain part of the people only.

On a sidenote, all these problematic issues your government is struggling with (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia) have been legalized under certain conditions in Belgium, and honestly it's for the better. Legal clarity and certainty is one of the foundations of our societies and dangling legal issues such as these are very bad.

Birdseye wrote:Gay marriage is victimless.

Not so, assuming an equal right by gay couples to have children. I believe you agree with me on this point, so I'm puzzled at your "victimless" assertion. What's that about?


Birdseye Conditionally Agrees With Bettina & Bold: Children Should Not Be Deprived of a Mother or Father (Scroll to Bottom)

BD (Son of a Moose)

The whole issue of acceptance of gay marrage and all the accouterments there-in, is but one of a series of chisel marks on society as we know it. Elements with-in our "village" would like nothing more than to re-define our moral outlook to more conform to a extreme format. On the one hand the gays want marriage to include their unholy couplings as been equal to established religious unions, and on the other we have NAMBLA asserting sex between men and boys is acceptable. So what next...NAMGLA? Is it O.K. then to have sex between men and young consenting girls? Maybe we should redo the pedophile laws in this country.
Then of course the Atheists and their allies in the ACLU want to help the cause by removing any and all reference to religion in public places so America can be the spitting image of what the Socialist Soviet Republic once was. Bush's choice for Supreme court Justice is being bashed because he is catholic and actually goes to church. As though having religious values is anatheim to sitting on the nations highest bench.
So I guess what you have to ask yourself is, after gay marriage, what's next?

Woodchip wrote:So what next...NAMGLA? Is it O.K. then to have sex between men and young consenting girls?

This argument is not valid as there are many things we don't allow kids to "consent" too. They can't drink, even if they consent, buy violent games, rent violent movies, the list goes on and on and on.

Throwing kids into the gay marriage debate is a sign of desperation.

Gooberman wrote:

Woodchip wrote:So what next...NAMGLA? Is it O.K. then to have sex between men and young consenting girls?

This argument is not valid as there are many things we don't allow kids to "consent" too. They can't drink, even if they consent, buy violent games, rent violent movies, the list goes on and on and on.

Throwing kids into the gay marriage debate is a sign of desperation.

I suggest Goob that you do a google on NAMBLA. Might open your sand covered eyes.

Gooberman wrote:Throwing kids into the gay marriage debate is a sign of desperation.

Actually, no. It's recognition of one of the core reasons (if not the principal reason) that the concept of marriage, as a state-sanctioned institution, exists.

Gooberman, this question is directed to you:

All things being equal, and assuming equal (and excellent) parenting skills by both A) a Gay Couple; and B) a Heterosexual Married Couple, please answer the following question:

Which couple would you prefer to raise your own newborn baby child as guardian, upon your untimely death?

Since the question, to you, is merely a sign of "desperation", it should be easy for you to answer.

Enjoy (and no peeking at Birdseye's intellectually honest reply),

BD

Woodchip, I know who they are. What I am arguing is that an issue that involves two consenting adults, just cannot be juxtaposed to an issue that involves one consenting adult, and one minor.

It's analogous to during prohibition, arguing that "if you will allow adults to drink, then you will soon be allowing kids to drink."

BD, I have a project to finish, then I will type a response. Probably tonight, maybe tomorrow morning.

Edit: ok, I read through your post, and I think that perhaps you got side railed. What you quoted, is in reference to kids being spouses. The comment was a responce to woodchips post, and must be taken in that context. If you don't know Nambla, then take woodchips advice to me and research it for a second.

Discussing children as far as their upbringing is concerned, is a fair issue. Notice I never responded to Bet after she made her point. I disagree, but I think its a fair side.

What you quoted from me was not me saying that the "upbringing of children" issue is desperate; it was saying that arguing that the "marriage of children to adults" slipery slope argument was desperate. Again, if you arn't familure with NAMBLA, please just do a quick google before replying. So, my questions to you:

Are we on the same page now? Were we always on the same page (because what you quoted doesn't at all flow from the questions you then asked: you completely changed the context)? Do you still want me to answer your questions?