Spine Doner List

[RoadKingLarry]

RKL brought up the faulty analogy, not I.  Talk to him about it.  

But, if RKL thinks the analogy is somehow cogent, how is asking those who, in living memory, lived through segregation (and might have known grandparents who were slaves) not cogent?

IMO, equating the two is perverse.

My point was that not everything covered by historic jurisprudence or long standing social standards are necessarily "right". 

[White Horseradish]

The West rejected polygamy for many reasons, one of the most important is that polygamist families are not as stable as monogamous. (Not that they break up but that tensions and rivalries between wives and their progeny are almost a given, human nature being what it is.)

Given what I know of familial tensions in the families we have today that seems pretty flimsy. There is a reason why relatives are the first to make the suspect list in murder investigations.

However, my point was not slippery slope but logic. If the sex of the persons in a marriage is unimportant, then why is the number. As I said before, if you, like Micro, believe that polygamy is just as acceptable as gay "marriage" then you have no logical flaw.

I have no logical flaw, then.

Problems like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_boys_(Mormon_fundamentalism)
A bunch of disaffected young men make great revolution fodder. Gang fodder, too. Smart governments ban the practice to minimize these problems.

I don't know enough about this to say something definite, but seems to me that this is limited to small communities with strict rules. I see they are "expected" to have at least three wives, where we are talking about allowing rather than requiring.

And China is looking at a generation or two where girls were selectively aborted, severely skewing the sex ratios.  Usually, this leads to capital-T trouble, like revolution, wars, etc.

What does this have to do with, erm, the price of tea in China? Or anything in this thread? If anything, polygamy would likely cut down on abortions, since there would be less reason to hide extra relationships.

[Perd Hapley]

See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about marriage.

We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is the "essence of marriage.".  You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.

Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.

[MicroBalrog]

Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.

That "kooky idea" is freedom.

[Perd Hapley]

Fixed it for you.

So "gay marriages" would be harmless. And?

[Perd Hapley]

That "kooky idea" is freedom.

 See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about freedom.

We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is freedom. You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.

[MicroBalrog]

So "gay marriages" would be harmless. And?

I sense we have a massive moral chasm between us.

[De Selby]

Sorry, sunshine. You're the one proposing that our government(s) fall in line with some kooky idea dreamed up from out of nowhere. Your place is not to demand explanations from us sane folk - your place is to provide them. 'Cause it sounds like you're proposing a very bizarre solution to a problem that ain't there.

In other words, you'd rather just repeat the assertion and hope enough people agree with it to maintain the status quo.   That's not a recipe for liberty.

[griz]

My argument, if you happen to have read this thread is that the purpose of gay marriage is to use the force of government as a bludgeon (see if you can find those exact words, already, multiple times in this thread) against those who do not freely grant them social approbation.

Aren't all laws really the government using force against those who disagree with the law?

[Ron]

Aren't all laws really the government using force against those who disagree with the law?

Absolutely

Hence the reason you should tread lightly when you are talking about enfranchising a whole new category of relationship into an institution (marriage) that will impact economics (insurance) and religion (according to gay activist stated goals). The intended and unintended consequences of this emotional feel good type legislation are not known.

We can only surmise insurance will go up even more and some activists will use lawful gay marriage as the next stepping stone in their attack on traditional Christianities stand against homosexual activity.

   

[De Selby]

Very good question Griz.   Mak, how does granting same sex couples a set of legal rights towards each other force you to accept it?  If you mean it prohibits the state from discriminating against them, that's what the debate should be about.  You want the state to use its power to favour some couples over others because you think the state has some moral investment in "recognizing the value of progeny."

I think it's a lot more clearly anti-freedom when you look at the policy for what it is.

[MicroBalrog]

Aren't all laws really the government using force against those who disagree with the law?

This is hardly true.

For example, laws specifically limiting government activity (say, the activity of police) or prohibiting state governments from discriminating against certain groups, or term limit laws.

[Ron]

This is hardly true.

For example, laws specifically limiting government activity (say, the activity of police) or prohibiting state governments from discriminating against certain groups, or term limit laws.

Ultimately though the laws are enforced at the point of a gun if one was to push back enough.

[sumpnz]

Once again, polygamy is brought up as part of the slippery slope.

Can someone coherently explain to me why it is somehow presented as a bad thing? It certainly can and often does produce children. The environment is beneficial to them as there are more people in close proximity to take care of them. It is traditional, having been practiced for thousands of years. It's in the Bible. Heck, in this economy it probably makes financial sense. What's wrong with it? Besides the difficulty of finding another woman that would put up with you and the whole multiple mother-in-law thing, that is.

Yep.  Polygamy sure is described in the Bible.  And nearly always in a light that's not exactly favorable.  It's not always condemmed outright (esp in the OT), but it is not held up as a desirable standard.  And in the NT, particularly the Epistles, it pretty clearly makes the case that monogamous heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable arraingement for those that do not choose celibacy.

[Perd Hapley]

I sense we have a massive moral chasm between us.

I sense you're not paying attention. I haven't based my point of view on some harm to society from homosexual relationships. I've said that their lack of consequence makes them a merely private affair which government need not recognize.

In other words, you'd rather just repeat the assertion and hope enough people agree with it to maintain the status quo.   That's not a recipe for liberty.

 See, I noticed there that you didn't explain why we all have to accept your assertion about liberty.

We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is liberty. You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.

I also noticed that you didn't explain how your second specious claim follows from your first. Your first specious claim, that is.

But, yes, I certainly hope we can find enough people to agree that marriage is what it is. I hope we can find enough people who agree that water is wet. I'd prefer not to live in a polity where any legal or political goal, no matter how bizarre, can be brought about by people like yourself repeating inane assertions, then branding any dissenters as deniers of equal rights, bigots, etc. Then you demand that we prove our assertion that water is wet. It's tiresome.

[MicroBalrog]

I sense you're not paying attention. I haven't based my point of view on some harm to society from homosexual relationships. I've said that their lack of consequence makes them a merely private affair which government need not recognize.

Perhaps you fail to understand my viewpoint.

As far as I am concerned, the question should not be "is it beneficial.". I do not think the role of the government is to

We all understand the concept - the problem for you is that half the country does not share your view about what is liberty. You're going to have to explain why your assertion matters more than any other.

So you hate states' powers, I take it?

[makattak]

Very good question Griz.   Mak, how does granting same sex couples a set of legal rights towards each other force you to accept it?  If you mean it prohibits the state from discriminating against them, that's what the debate should be about.  You want the state to use its power to favour some couples over others because you think the state has some moral investment in "recognizing the value of progeny."

I think it's a lot more clearly anti-freedom when you look at the policy for what it is.

Companies will be sued for choosing not to offer benefits to gay couples. Religious service organizations will be sued (or driven out of their ministry) for refusing to adopt a baby to a gay couple. Religous contractors will be sued for choosing not to bake a cake or photograph gay "wedding" ceremonies. Churches will be sued for choosing not to rent their building out to homosexual couples for their "weddings".

And I can safely make these predictions because other than the first statement, every single one of these have already happened before the government sanctions gay "marriage".

As for the requirement to offer the same benefits to gay couples, is there any doubt that a similar administration to the one currently in office that is forcing religious charities to offer abortofacients to their employees in contravention of their religious beliefs would even blink about forcing companies to treat gay couples the same way as straight couples?

This isn't a difficult concept: it is already happening.

And please don't try to claim this won't happen. You will be the first to argue that companies HAVE to provide gay couples marital benefits under the equal protection clause, given your arguments in favor of forcing ministries to provide abortofacients.

[makattak]

Tell you what. For those of you who are either ignoring or simply don't believe my contention that religious liberty will be curtailed by gay "marriage":

We all know that a gun registration has absolutely no chance of leading to confiscation, I mean look how scared the Democrats are of gun rights now.

It would also make the anti's feel better to know the government is keeping track of all the guns. Yes, it might be a little costly, but it would make them feel better, so I'm sure it's worth it. After all, there's no harm since we know the government won't be confiscating our arms.

And, if by some miracle, the liberals get a filibuster proof Senate and the House and the Presidency (good thing we know this can't happen) and decide to make us turn in our guns, well... I'll feel really bad about it.

[Fly320s]

Tell you what. For those of you who are either ignoring or simply don't believe my contention that religious liberty will be curtailed by gay "marriage":

We all know that a gun registration has absolutely no chance of leading to confiscation, I mean look how scared the Democrats are of gun rights now.

It would also make the anti's feel better to know the government is keeping track of all the guns. Yes, it might be a little costly, but it would make them feel better, so I'm sure it's worth it. After all, there's no harm since we know the government won't be confiscating our arms.

And, if by some miracle, the liberals get a filibuster proof Senate and the House and the Presidency (good thing we know this can't happen) and decide to make us turn in our guns, well... I'll feel really bad about it.

I think you're comparing a negative law to a positive law, for lack of better terms.  The gun registration is a negative law: it is a restriction on an act.  Gay marriage is a positive law: it removes a restriction on an act.

I agree that there will be people who attempt to force businesses to offer benefits to gay couples. That is always a problem: the left wants socialized everything. Hell, a large part of the right wants "free" health care. The only way to stop this push is to get people to become self-responsible. In today's society, you'll have better luck teaching frogs to fly. 

The fight needs to be directed towards protecting the rights (authority) of the businesses and organizations to offer or not offer benefits and compensation as they see fit.  If business is protected like a church, in regards to how they associate with people, then gay marriage will affect no one.

[roo_ster]

I think you're comparing a negative law to a positive law, for lack of better terms.  The gun registration is a negative law: it is a restriction on an act.  Gay marriage is a positive law: it removes a restriction on an act.

Er, no.  Gays can go to whatever whacked out church they want and have the unholy man bless their nuptials.  What you want is to force others to recognize them with violence/gov't, a "negative" act by your reckoning.

And you also know that it will erode freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. 

Yeah, yours is the "liberty" position, for sure.  The first amendment is so passe.

[Fly320s]

Er, no.  Gays can go to whatever whacked out church they want and have the unholy man bless their nuptials.  What you want is to force others to recognize them with violence/gov't, a "negative" act by your reckoning.

And you also know that it will erode freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. 

Yeah, yours is the "liberty" position, for sure.  The first amendment is so passe.

1. What makes "their" church not as good as yours?  There seems to be many gays in the Catholic Church.

2. So, if from Day One, God or Jesus had said that homosexuality is OK, would you oppose gay marriage today? Aren't all of God's children loved equally?

3. Gay marriage won't erode those freedoms, people who can't live and let live will. If the liberals that are pushing this agenda would allow churches and businesses to run their own affairs, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue to anyone but the gays.

[makattak]

1. What makes "their" church not as good as yours?  There seems to be many gays in the Catholic Church.

They aren't married in or by the Catholic Church. And we are all sinners, gay or not. We just aren't supposed to celebrate sin.

2. So, if from Day One, God or Jesus had said that homosexuality is OK, would you oppose gay marriage today? Aren't all of God's children loved equally?

God loves everyone. He hates sin though. If God created us differently so that it were not totally illogical and had Jesus blessed homosexuality, I would not be personally opposed to it, but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty.

3. Gay marriage won't erode those freedoms, people who can't live and let live will. If the liberals that are pushing this agenda would allow churches and businesses to run their own affairs, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue to anyone but the gays.

And if your aunt had ____, she'd be your uncle. This is a cheap cop out. You admit the state of the world and then say that you don't want the necessary results of your position because... well... that's not what you want.

You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.

[roo_ster]

You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.

I will quibble with this.  It is not just freedom of religion that will be lost, but also freedom of association and freedom of speech(0).  Pretty much a First Amendment Defenestration Trifecta.  On the upside, I bet they won't make gay marriage the state religion(1), so the Establishment Clause is safe.

You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.

Yeah, that is pretty rich.  I'm sure there were folks who supported the PATRIOT ACT who really, truly feel bad it has been used to trample common criminals and eviscerate non-criminal/non-terrorist liberty.  I can summon up a thimbleful of warm spit with which to properly compensate their regrets.







(0) Given the already extant use of gov't force to curtail them on behalf of this issue.


(1) Officially, that is.  They have already transmogrified the Numinous Negro Hallowed Homosexual into a secular saint.

[Fly320s]

They aren't married in or by the Catholic Church. And we are all sinners, gay or not. We just aren't supposed to celebrate sin.

God loves everyone. He hates sin though. If God created us differently so that it were not totally illogical and had Jesus blessed homosexuality, I would not be personally opposed to it, but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty.

And if your aunt had ____, she'd be your uncle. This is a cheap cop out. You admit the state of the world and then say that you don't want the necessary results of your position because... well... that's not what you want.

You're still going to push for your position despite the fact that it will restrict religious liberty, but say that it makes you feel bad that it does. How nice.

First, thanks for the real answers. Would you be so kind as to answer the first question?

Regarding this, "but if other religions still condemned it, I would oppose it on exactly the same grounds that this is a thinly veiled attack on religious liberty," are there things that other religions condemn that you don't support? To clarify, I doubt you support what every religion says and you make actually support opposing views.

My point in #3 was just to say that no matter what happens with gay marriage, the people in this country are becoming less independant and liberty-minded whle becoming more dependant on government. That creates the situation where those people (dependents, leftists, etc) actively try to force people into their way of thinking. I don't want to force you, or anyone else, to accept gay marriage. I want to remove the barriers that tell people what they can not do, from the government's perspective. I still support and encourage you, your church, any business, and everyone else to decide with whom they associate.  Under no circumstance do I want to require you to accept gays, gay marriage, or anything else you don't like.

As an aside, are there federal laws that prohibit gay marriage?

[Ben]

I've just read through all five pages of this.

I realize this is a "hot button" topic, but I'm seeing a roller coaster of replies ranging from polite debate to borderline unacceptable behavior from both sides of the issue. Lets please be sure to argue facts and positions without resorting to borderline name-calling or derogatory language, else the thread will need to be locked. Thanks.