2004 Presidential Election.

[CNCRaymond]

Its not about banning gay folks, its about defining marrage as between 1 man and 1 women. NO ONE is saying that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married couples, only that they cannot use the term married.

Personally I feel that any person, man or women who loves each other and has become life long partners deserve the same legal rights as married couples.

And regardless of the percentage point Tesco, record numbers of people did come out and vote. Of those who did vote, Bush garned a significant percentage over Kerry.

The issue that killed Kerry was gun rights, gay rights, and tax increases. He would have been pro-gun, pro-gay but said marrage is for a man and a women, and promised not to increase or "roll back" taxes, he would be our new president.

He stood by his conviction, something most politicians would never do, and he lost. He will run again in 2008 and win.

And if Senator Oakie-R tries that crap, I hope they drive his arse out of town on a rail road pike! People are poeple. Banning a gay teacher would be saying that a gay teacher is a bad influance on a child. How so? Its BS so don't worry about it.

[Azselendor]

If I recall, Edwards and/or Hilary is favored for the democrats in 2008.

[Phoenix-D]

CNCRaymond said:
Its not about banning gay folks, its about defining marrage as between 1 man and 1 women. NO ONE is saying that gay couples should not have the same legal rights as married couples, only that they cannot use the term married.

Bull. A substantial portion of the anti-gay marriage amendments also Banned civil unions, which IS saying exactly that.

That and we've tried the "seperate but equal" thing before, remember?

[Azselendor]

I wonder how long until the church faxes over the "Now you scratch our back" list for bush to take care of....

[Will]

Phoenix-D said:

Bull. A substantial portion of the anti-gay marriage amendments also Banned civil unions, which IS saying exactly that.

That and we've tried the "seperate but equal" thing before, remember?

I just wanted to belatedly ditto this. While it is only my personal perspective, my experiences living in a conservative rural area (rural Pennsylvania) and a moderately progressive urban sprawl (Los Angeles) tell me that most of the anti-gay-marriage (or 'pro-family', or 'defenders-of-marriage') activists are simply expressing homophobia, only veiled to varying degrees. Some seem legitimate to people who only follow the quick sound-bytes on the news, while others show the blatant absurdity of the position (IMHO). In California, the "activists" aren't really all that active (in fact, the College Republicans here have the very odd platform of being "pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gun control", which sounds awfully like a Democrat group... but this is California). The ones who say they oppose gay marriage generally have never met or talked to a homosexual person. Or, more likely, they were never aware of it if they did, so it's mostly an ignorance problem from that viewpoint. In Pennsylvania, on the other hand, I think it's ignorance combined with outright stubborness and fear. There were actually op-ed pieces in the local paper that seriously put forth the argument that the local theatre should be shut down for putting on a production of The Birdcage, before the "gay disease" infected the entire town. Then again, this is in an area of Pennsylvania where people fly the Confederate flag, and there is still blatant and obvious racism.

What I would like is for just ONE person to give me solid, credible arguments for why two people, regardless of their sex, should not be able to get married. I sometimes wonder: Do they not realize that this sounds exactly like the laws banning blacks from marrying whites? There are arguments based on religion, but there is this little bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and that's in there for a good reason. The State has no business in the Church, and vice versa. And it must be remembered that marriage was co-opted into religion, and the current religious significance is just the incorporation of very old secular (or pagan, depending on your viewpoint) traditions. In the real world marriage is the legal binding of two people, and any religious attachment to the term is merely coincidental. That little clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit a couple from having a religious ceremony to go along with it, either.

But, with all that, I do support civil unions. On the grounds that a little progress is better than none. The entire civil rights and women's rights movements were and are based on small steps toward the ideal. There are some people who just won't change their mind on certain subjects (such as blacks, jews, women, gays, etc being somehow inferior). Anything that makes the transition easier, like using a different word for the same idea, is a good thing.

[Jack Simth]

Will said:
What I would like is for just ONE person to give me solid, credible arguments for why two people, regardless of their sex, should not be able to get married. I sometimes wonder: Do they not realize that this sounds exactly like the laws banning blacks from marrying whites? There are arguments based on religion, but there is this little bit in the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", and that's in there for a good reason. The State has no business in the Church, and vice versa.

Bearing in mind, that this is a question of ethics, and as such is fundamentally unarguable on several levels, here is a roundabout and incomplete attempt at one:

Let's start with something else. Something that the supermajority of people believe is wrong: Murder. Murder is illeagal. It is also called wrong in the Bible. Obviously, murder is a religious issue, and the state has no right to intervene. Perhaps it is an ethical issue, instead. With ethics, things ultimately lie on fundamental, unproveable assumptions (some samples: with Kant's "pure logic", one must first assume: 1) that logic is applicable to ethics, 2) that "better" is something to be strived for, and 3) Kant's definition of what has intrinsic value; with self-interest or extended self-interest ethics, one must first assume that personal consequences matter in questions of ethics [not a given in all schools of ethics]; "feels good" ethics usually assume that it either doesn't matter anyway or that nature/God/whatever has provided the ultimate guide when producing your feelings (or that it is an evolutionary process, and if your ethics are flawed, they are supposed to cause you problems), or some variant; with God centered ethics, even assuming that the existence of God and every event statement in the Bible is wholly accurate in every detail, one first needs to assume that the created ethically ought to obey the rules laid out by the Creator; et cetera; et cetera), which are religion-like in nature. Murder penalties are therefore unconstitutional, and thus the state has no right to interfere on that basis.

You can replace "murder" in the above with virtually anything that's illeagal (with minor tweaks to the rest of the text), really - (in no particular order) rape, incest, theft, drug abuse, tax evasion, kiddie porn, gay marriage, or prostitution, to name a few. The above is complete bull, of course. But how can the case be argued that it IS bull? More specifically, can you debunk the above for murder, rape, incest, theft, kiddie porn, et cetera without also debunking the above your favorite issue: gay marriage, especially considering that it uses a good portion of the same basic approach that you used to say that gay marriage should be okay?

Will said:
And it must be remembered that marriage was co-opted into religion, and the current religious significance is just the incorporation of very old secular (or pagan, depending on your viewpoint) traditions.

That is one hypothesis. It isn't proven, however.

[Will]

There is a problem with the murder argument, though. I've heard it before, sometimes with "murder", sometimes "rape", sometimes "kiddie porn", and on and on, pretty much always something everyone who is considered sane believes is a very Bad Thing(tm). Then they say, replace this Bad Thing(tm) with gay marriage, and there is your argument for it!

Wrong.

When you do such substitutions, you're assuming that either A) the things being substituted have all the same properties as far as the argument is concerned, or B) the argument is a tautology. The "murder" argument easily disproves B. Then what of A? What are the properties of all these Bad Things(tm)?
Murder - one person depriving another person of life
Rape - one person depriving another person control over the body sexually
Kiddie Porn - one person depriving a previously innocent youth of innocence, in addition to depriving control over the body sexually

And gay marriage? Can anyone seriously make an argument that two people who love each other cannot make such a bond between themselves? All I have heard simply is an "I don't like it" argument. Well I don't like racists, Nazis, lawyers, marketing executives, insurance salesmen, circus clowns, or albinos. But they have never done anything to me personally, I just decide I don't like them. Therefore, if I can convince enough people that they don't like those things either, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make me and many other people happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

A lot of people don't like homosexuality. It makes them uncomfortable. Gay people have never done anything to them, it's just they aren't liked. Therefore, if it turns out there are enough people who don't like homosexuality, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make homophobics happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

Another mistake is saying that all things which are dealt with in religion cannot be dealt with in government. With many religions, a form of government is already built in. Exhibit A, the Catholic Church. When you look at the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there is nothing in there saying there is no overlap in domain. Religion or lack thereof is a central part of every person. So is living, and living in society kind of implies that one is living under at least one government. If one is living under more than one, then it is expected that the person will be restrained a little more in what they can do, while getting the benefits provided from both. There is no conflict in the Constitution as long as the "government" of religion does not interfere with the functioning of the State, and the functioning of the State does not interfere with the functioning of the Church. In other words, the Bible can say "murder is wrong", the US Government can say "murder is a felony punishable by X years in prison"... and there's no conflict! Or, religions can say "marriage is a sacred union between only a man and a woman", and the US Government can say "marriage is the union of two persons for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc"... and there's still no conflict! There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the same sex. There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the opposite sex. There's no forcing to marry, period.

As for the "hypothesis" of marriage... ok, if you're taking the position that marriage started with the story of Adam and Eve in Eden from Judeo-Christian mythology, then of course marriage wasn't co-opted into religion. But even when I believed in that stuff as a kid, I thought of it more as fables than actual history, just like I didn't really believe that Jack climbed up a magical beanstalk to steal from the Giant in the sky. So that bit is only valid for those that have a similar view of that and all similar stories of origins of man, etc.. It is merely supporting evidence, and is not necessary to the argument as a whole.

[Jack Simth]

Will said:
There is a problem with the murder argument, though. I've heard it before, sometimes with "murder", sometimes "rape", sometimes "kiddie porn", and on and on, pretty much always something everyone who is considered sane believes is a very Bad Thing(tm). Then they say, replace this Bad Thing(tm) with gay marriage, and there is your argument for it!

Wrong.

When you do such substitutions, you're assuming that either A) the things being substituted have all the same properties as far as the argument is concerned, or B) the argument is a tautology. The "murder" argument easily disproves B. Then what of A? What are the properties of all these Bad Things(tm)?
Murder - one person depriving another person of life
Rape - one person depriving another person control over the body sexually

Both assume some particular definition of person, which is very religion-like, if not necessarily precisely religious. Should the government be able to dictate what is and is not considered a person? If no, then you can't charge a solipsist with murder or rape; if yes, then it can easily become quite reasonable to put an abortionist on trial for murder.

Will said:
Kiddie Porn - one person depriving a previously innocent youth of innocence, in addition to depriving control over the body sexually

That applies to the extreme of kiddie porn - some jerk sticking it in a five year old - it does not necessarily apply to a twelve-year-old doing a strip-tease in front of a camera for cash (which is basically what the various task-forces trying to take down the kiddie-porn recruiters fish for).

Will said:
And gay marriage? Can anyone seriously make an argument that two people who love each other cannot make such a bond between themselves? All I have heard simply is an "I don't like it" argument.

So you've never heard the long-term social stability question? What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? According to one source I've heard (granted, he was a televangalist, and is biased - but then again, everybody's biased to some degree - doesn't necessarily mean that their data is false) was three generations. Now consider the Jews. Theirs is pretty much the only culture that has survived relatively intact through multiple millenia of subugation and persecution (of varying severity, granted). They have a lot of rules - religious rules that they live by - which include such things as sanitation, a ban on incest, and a ban on eating pork, to name three. Now, in modern times, we find that many of these are actually extremely practical health concerns. Thanks to an understanding of germs, we know that people who don't wash regularly are considerably more likely to contract diseases. Thanks to an understanding of genetics, we know that the childeren of incest are considerably more likely to have defects from negative-recessive gene pairs. Thanks to an understanding of biology, we now know that pigs contain a parasite which pigs are immune to, but is devastating to humans if the parasite gets into their systems (sure, it's not certain that you will catch it if you eat pork that still has some surviving parasites, but essentially all pigs carry that parasite, and barring some rather unusual circumstances, eating pork is the only way to pick it up). Many of their practices are present and required (in some form) in most modern societies - theft, murder, rape, a weekly day of rest, and incest laws, to name a few. Whether you assume their laws were handed down to them by God, or that they evolved over a given length of time as survival factors for a society, it's a bad idea to start dropping portions that are integrated into your society without first running long-term field tests.

Will said:
Well I don't like racists, Nazis, lawyers, marketing executives, insurance salesmen, circus clowns, or albinos. But they have never done anything to me personally, I just decide I don't like them. Therefore, if I can convince enough people that they don't like those things either, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make me and many other people happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

A lot of people don't like homosexuality. It makes them uncomfortable. Gay people have never done anything to them, it's just they aren't liked. Therefore, if it turns out there are enough people who don't like homosexuality, it may be decreed through government that those people shall not have rights under this government. This will undoubtably make homophobics happy; that doesn't make it right or good.

Their's no attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to prohibit them the vote; they aren't being prohibited free speech; they aren't being systemically executed; killing them is still murder; they aren't being prohibited to engage in commerce; they aren't being prohibited to hold jobs (for the most part - there is the military exception to that - but the military is, of necessity, extremely pragmatic when dealing with problems - it's much more efficent to remove the 2% that cause 50% of those around them to lose efficency than it is to train the 50% to not be bothered by it). It's not the blanket denial of rights that your statement above could easily be read to imply. In some ways it's more of a preservation of the language - an object designed to be sat upon with four legs and a back is not a chalkboard; a large, flat chunk of slate mounted on a wall and designed to be repeatedly written on and erased is not a chair; two men in love is not a marriage. In some ways it's trying to prevent a slippery slope - if two men in love can be a marriage, why not three men in love? Or one man and three women? Or a forty-year old man and a thirteen-year old girl? Or ...?

Will said:
Another mistake is saying that all things which are dealt with in religion cannot be dealt with in government. With many religions, a form of government is already built in. Exhibit A, the Catholic Church. When you look at the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", there is nothing in there saying there is no overlap in domain. Religion or lack thereof is a central part of every person. So is living, and living in society kind of implies that one is living under at least one government. If one is living under more than one, then it is expected that the person will be restrained a little more in what they can do, while getting the benefits provided from both. There is no conflict in the Constitution as long as the "government" of religion does not interfere with the functioning of the State, and the functioning of the State does not interfere with the functioning of the Church. In other words, the Bible can say "murder is wrong", the US Government can say "murder is a felony punishable by X years in prison"... and there's no conflict! Or, religions can say "marriage is a sacred union between only a man and a woman", and the US Government can say "marriage is the union of two persons for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, etc"... and there's still no conflict! There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the same sex. There's no forcing of people to marry someone of the opposite sex. There's no forcing to marry, period.

By the exact same token, there is no conflict if religion says "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" while the state says "marriage is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, et cetera". Yet your initial argument was that the state defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was wrong.

[Will]

I've heard the long-term social stability argument. I think it's bunk, conveniently looking at certain civilizations that were either already in decline, or about to enter it, then extrapolating that homosexuals caused it. While at the same time ignoring the Greeks, and other Mediteranian civilizations where it was relatively common for there to be homosexual relations (about as common as it is now, or more, as far as I can tell). They certainly didn't begin to fail after "three generations". I think an argument used by one of my old english teachers to demonstrate logical fallacy covers this argument pretty well: "During the summer, people tend to eat more ice cream. People also tend to drown more often. Therefore, ice cream causes people to drown." Two things that can barely be said to be related, and causality infered from that.

Slippery slope. Another logical fallacy. Next.

As far as the restricting of rights, as it stands now, gay couples are not allowed to file joint tax returns, they are not allowed hospital visitation rights, there is no automatic inheritance, etc. Many rights afforded to opposite-sex couples are denied to same-sex couples. The amendments being thrown about propose to make this permanent. Now if you are talking about an amendment that simply says a same-sex couple cannot use the term "married" to describe themselves, that takes away the issue of rights, true. But it still has problems. For one, it is putting the country through a difficult legal process to essentially define a word. I would like to see you propose an amendment banning the usage of the word "chalkboard" to describe an inanimate object usually with four legs used for a person to sit in. It's useless, pointless, and... it's not what the amendments are going for in the first place. Semantics are not the issue for the people proposing the amendments, the issue is "We don't like the fags". And that is just ugly.

As for definition of "person"? What makes the definition "religion-like"? I see no reason why there cannot be a secular definition of "person", and I'm pretty sure everyone has a more-or-less secular definition in their head when they think of "person". The religious stuff is pretty much reserved for terms like "soul", "spirit", etc. Government doesn't dictate what is or is not a person because it is simply understood. If that's not enough for the pedants out there, how does "one of the species Homo sapiens sapiens" work for them?

And how exactly have you decided to sneak abortion into this? I was arguing that same-sex couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. Never brought up abortion. It's a completely seperate issue as far as I'm concerned.

[Instar]

Jack Simth said:
Both assume some particular definition of person, which is very religion-like, ...

What? Defining a person is not religious at all. A living human being is considered a person.

Jack Simth said:
... if not necessarily precisely religious. Should the government be able to dictate what is and is not considered a person? If no, then you can't charge a solipsist with murder or rape; if yes, then it can easily become quite reasonable to put an abortionist on trial for murder.

That applies to the extreme of kiddie porn - some jerk sticking it in a five year old - it does not necessarily apply to a twelve-year-old doing a strip-tease in front of a camera for cash (which is basically what the various task-forces trying to take down the kiddie-porn recruiters fish for).

So you've never heard the long-term social stability question? What's the longest a society that was founded with exclusively (or nearly so) "traditional" marriage has survived after "non-traditional" marriges have become widespread? ...

Anecdotal, and a VERY skewed view of history. There is not a single shred of historical evidence that equates gay marriage to the downfall of society. This line of argument is bunk.

Jack Simth said:
According to one source I've heard (granted, he was a televangalist, ...

Appeal to authority. A televangalist[sic?] is hardly an authority on anything, other than milking the gullible of cash in the name of the Lord.

Jack Simth said:
... and is biased - but then again, everybody's biased to some degree - doesn't necessarily mean that their data is false)...

Yes, actually, it does. I call this evanglist's evidence into doubt. His evidence is more than likely anecdotal and very skewed.

Jack Simth said:
... was three generations. Now consider the Jews. Theirs is pretty much the only culture that has survived relatively intact through multiple millenia of subugation and persecution (of varying severity, granted).

The Irish have Lasted quite a long time under subjugation (up till the 1700s I would bet!). This has hardly any relevance...

Jack Simth said:
They have a lot of rules - religious rules that they live by - which include such things as sanitation, a ban on incest, and a ban on eating pork, to name three.
Now, in modern times, we find that many of these are actually extremely practical health concerns. Thanks to an understanding of germs, we know that people who don't wash regularly are considerably more likely to contract diseases. Thanks to an understanding of genetics, we know that the childeren of incest are considerably more likely to have defects from negative-recessive gene pairs. Thanks to an understanding of biology, we now know that pigs contain a parasite which pigs are immune to, but is devastating to humans if the parasite gets into their systems (sure, it's not certain that you will catch it if you eat pork that still has some surviving parasites, but essentially all pigs carry that parasite, and barring some rather unusual circumstances, eating pork is the only way to pick it up). Many of their practices are present and required (in some form) in most modern societies - theft, murder, rape, a weekly day of rest [Not so. Blue laws are gone in the US, and were immoral to start with], and incest laws, to name a few. Whether you assume their laws were handed down to them by God [God's laws include ones that allow me to rape and get away with it for 50 silver pieces...], or that they evolved over a given length of time as survival factors for a society, it's a bad idea to start dropping portions that are integrated into your society without first running long-term field tests.

How convienent that you mention field tests. Guess what?! Many countries overseas have allowed gay marriage for quite some time. The society hasn't crumbled at all!
So, according to you, immoral and wrong laws ought not be dropped without running tests? Laws prohibiting interracial marriage are quite obviously wrong, but you come out in favor of them with this argument. You're only hurting yourself with that position.

Jack Simth said:

Their's no attempt (that I'm aware of, anyway) to prohibit them the vote; they aren't being prohibited free speech; they aren't being systemically executed; killing them is still murder; they aren't being prohibited to engage in commerce; they aren't being prohibited to hold jobs (for the most part - there is the military exception to that - but the military is, of necessity, extremely pragmatic when dealing with problems - it's much more efficent to remove the 2% that cause 50% of those around them to lose efficency than it is to train the 50% to not be bothered by it). It's not the blanket denial of rights that your statement above could easily be read to imply. In some ways it's more of a preservation of the language - an object designed to be sat upon with four legs and a back is not a chalkboard; a large, flat chunk of slate mounted on a wall and designed to be repeatedly written on and erased is not a chair; two men in love is not a marriage. In some ways it's trying to prevent a slippery slope - if two men in love can be a marriage, why not three men in love? Or one man and three women? Or a forty-year old man and a thirteen-year old girl? Or ...?

The "slippery slope" argument is crap.

Jack Simth said:

By the exact same token, there is no conflict if religion says "marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman" while the state says "marriage is the union of a man and a woman for purposes of taxation, inheritance, visitation, et cetera". Yet your initial argument was that the state defining marriage as being a union between a man and a woman was wrong.