Gay Marriage Rights

[toasty]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

You give rights to different groups, other groups will ask for the same.

I'm completely OK with this. Everyone ought to have the same rights and opportunities regardless of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc. Isn't that what we're supposedly all about here in the US?

It bears mention, I think, that homosexuals as a "group," like women, African Americans and other "groups" that have been discriminated against in the past, have not joined this "group" by their own volition. I suppose this raises a whole other discussion, but I have never believed that gay people "choose" to be gay or "become" gay over time -- you're either gay or you're not, and my impression has always been that the individual doesn't have a lot of say in the matter. After all, why would a straight person, who is the beneficiary of all that society has to offer, willfully adopt a lifestyle that would ensure that he or she would be discriminated against, lose certain rights, and draw the ire of close-minded people? It isn't rational.

With the foregoing in mind, I have trouble viewing opposition to gay marriage as anything other than brazen and unabashed discrimination.

[cosmo]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

I'm completely OK with this. Everyone ought to have the same rights and opportunities regardless of sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc. Isn't that what we're supposedly all about here in the US?

Everyone DOES have the same rights here in America. But just because, as I said earlier, there are small groups that think new laws should be passed for utter recognition of their lifestyle, doesn't mean that they should be passed. Maybe I should get a group together to oppose driving on the right side of the road, because I believe it's wrong to keep me on the right side of the dotted line. Where is the freedom? I should have that right. I'm absolutely offended for the fact that I'm constrained to just one side of a two way street. Look at all that room over there!!

I for one, do not mind 2 people of the same sex get married. Find the chapel, gather the friends and family, and get hitched. But to have the government recognize a separate lifestyle that involves 2-4% of the country, I don't know. I think it's being blown way out of proportion here. Because there are many groups wanting new rights to be recognized by the government.

After all, why would a straight person, who is the beneficiary of all that society has to offer, willfully adopt a lifestyle that would ensure that he or she would be discriminated against, lose certain rights, and draw the ire of close-minded people? It isn't rational.

What rights would be lost? They have the right to marry of the opposite sex, but I don't see any rights being lost, because it was never there to begin with.

With the foregoing in mind, I have trouble viewing opposition to gay marriage as anything other than brazen and unabashed discrimination.

It's easier to call it discrimination, than to find out the true nature of passing innumerable laws for a society that is everchanging, and contains millions of different characteristics and traits. Having a government sanction all of these traits is not the governments buisness, if you ask me.

[thefncrow]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

Sowell misses two major factual problems in his argument:
1) Sowell assumes that gay couples are free to enter into contracts which would allow them to gain some of the benefits of married couples. Sowell apparently does not realize that 9 of the 11 gay marriage amendments he's supporting strip this liberty away(specific disallowal of contracts entered into by gay couples which confer any facet of the benefits from a marriage).
2) Sowell mistakenly assumes that extending a set of special privlidges that one group enjoys upon another group is some sort of favoritism, and not what it really is, destroying a system of favoritism that already exists.

Sowell sets up a strawman so he can feel really proud about knocking it over. The idea that homosexuals are seeking approval with marriage is a joke. They're no more seeking approval than straight couples are. Anyone has the right to hold opinions about other people in whatever way they wish.
When you show me someone actually asking for a law requiring people to accept their lifestyle, I'll join you in shooting them down. What is being asked for is not approval, but simply equal legal footing, which is supposed to be guaranteed

Some people like to argue that black people are an inferior race, and, while bigoted, they have a right to their opinion. This right, however, stops the minute they act upon said opinion, and try to force their worldview upon others. A world where it was not OK to not be gay is as bad as a world in which it is not OK to be gay, assuming we're speaking of "not OK" in a legal sense, and not a personal judgement sense. To force your worldview upon anyone else's opinion is immoral and should be illegal, and it bites both ways. Just as straight people can be upset at gay people, gay people can be upset at homophobes, but for either group to attempt to use the government to promote their world view is wrong. If you want to think "Oh, fags can burn in hell, fucking faggots", I'm not going to stop you, because you get to think what you want. I might think you're wrong, misguided, and even a bigot, but I have no right to use the government to suppress your views any more than you have the right to use the government to suppress the views of homosexuals. However, once again, you need to note that its only in the use of the government where this goes wrong, and people may do what they wish, within the bounds of the law, in order to have their message heard by others.

Just when it seems like Sowell's scraping the bottom of the barrel, he actually breaks through the bottom with his inane line about how society has an interest in hetero couples and not same-sex couples. This is a tired and cliched argument that doesn't even apply to the damn situation. Some, and, lets say for the sake of argument, many hetero couples produce children. However, if the reason for the special privlidges heaped upon hetero couples is for child-rearing, then why are we pinning these privlidges to marriage in the first place? There are hetero couples who wish to not have children, and there are gay couples who adopt. If the purpose of benefits from marriage is to help with rearing children, then tying the benefits to marriage is pointless.

We have group A, which consists of straight people, and is further divided into groups F and G. F consists of hetero couples who want to/have children, and G consists of hetero couples who wish to not have children. We then have group B, which consists of gay couples, and sub-groups D(gay couple, with children) and E(gay couple, no children). If marriage benefits are about aid in child rearing, then the appropriate groups to grant benefits to are F and D. Under the current system, group A gets the benefits, and group B is left out in the cold, despite D being a mirror image of F, and being a group we obviously would want to grant child-rearing benefits to, and E being a mirror image of G, who do not deserve the benefits but get them anyway, all based on a line of demarcation which fails to satisfy any logical inquiries as to why the line exists there.

Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.

Everyone DOES have the same rights here in America. But just because, as I said earlier, there are small groups that think new laws should be passed for utter recognition of their lifestyle, doesn't mean that they should be passed. Maybe I should get a group together to oppose driving on the right side of the road, because I believe it's wrong to keep me on the right side of the dotted line. Where is the freedom? I should have that right. I'm absolutely offended for the fact that I'm constrained to just one side of a two way street. Look at all that room over there!!

I for one, do not mind 2 people of the same sex get married. Find the chapel, gather the friends and family, and get hitched. But to have the government recognize a separate lifestyle that involves 2-4% of the country, I don't know. I think it's being blown way out of proportion here. Because there are many groups wanting new rights to be recognized by the government.

You miss the big picture. You ask why 2-4% of the population must be included in the Governmentally Sponsored Reindeer Games of the majority of the population, and I'm asking what reason you can present to keep the 2-4% of the population out of your Governmentally Sponsored Reindeer Games. Without a compelling reason for exclusion, a policy of inclusion must be follwed, and this is what equal protection is there to do. If you don't want your Reindeer Games to have to follow the rule of inclusion, then the solution is simple: do it privately, and without the guiding hand of the government behind it.

Quick note, there's no reason whatsoever to be bringing percentages up like this. Our system of government was formed the way it was to avoid the tyranny of the majority, so the fact that only 2-4% of the population is being oppressed matters not, even with a majority supporting their oppression, because a part of the population is being oppressed contrary to the promises of the Constitution. If you do not like this system, you can try to change our system of government, or leave to live in another country where unpopular viewpoints being expressed ends in incarceration or death.

Don't even TRY to bring up these stupid arbirtrary "freedoms" that are being abridged, because they're not even analogous. Your road analogy might work to some small degree if, lets say, people who have any color of eyes but blue were allowed to do it. Then you might have a right to complain. As it is, no favoritism is taking place, because the policy is unequivocal.

The quibble here is in equal protection. If we have laws that grant special privlidges and immunities to sectors of the community, it should require a very good reason to exclude people from these privlidges. I've yet to see a single compelling secular argument to this end. Discrimination by private instutions is OK; discrimination by government is never OK without a compelling argument for said discrimination.

However, if special rights are going to be afforded to married couples, then it should require a compelling state interest to be able to bar couples from taking advantage of these privlidges, and, as many times as I've had this debate, I've yet to hear a single compelling secular argument as to why homosexuals must be barred from marriage. The problem you have thus far is that you're assuming that gay couples marrying is a special privlidge, while assuming that straight couples marrying is not a special privlidge, which it most certainly is. So, I posit to you, since you want to abolish special privlidge, can I safely assume you're on my side of the fence of wanting no legal recognition of marriages of any sort? After all, if you're not, then you're not really against special privlidges, are you?

My solution is simple: No legal marriages for anyone, governmentally-recognized civil unions for all persons who can give informed consent, and benefits for couples who are rearing children, be the couple married or unmarried, and be the children adopted or the biological children of the couple. Then, we pass one piece of legislation that essentially says "Whereever the term 'marriage' is used in any acts which are currently active across the land, it shall be hereby changed to 'civil union'." Bingo, now we've demolished this sort of "separate but equal(but not really cause they're fags lol)" attitude that a lot of this country has and laid everyone on the same legal footing. Anyone who may give informed consent may enter into a civil union, but not everyone may enter into a marriage. However, as marriage confers no special benefits upon anyone, and it is private organizations and not governmental bodies which do this sort of discrimination, this is acceptable.

I've also toyed with the idea of marriages being enforced as a contract signed by all sides, with "til death do us part" being quite literally in the language of the contract. This would leave divorce proceedings to only move in one direction: dissolvement of the contract due to breach of contract. It would be the end of no-fault divorce. Of course, by this point, marriage is a private institution, so these matters are handled in civil courts, and marriage contracts are designed by private institutions(and thus can carry whatever sort of language they wish to the extent the law allows).

EDIT: deleted a paragraph that was redundant.

[Yao]

With the exception of the last chapter...this says all I've ever wanted to say on this topic, but ten times better.
I also support the 'civil union' idea and the other propositions. That is some well-thought over stuff here.

[cosmo]

1) Sowell assumes that gay couples are free to enter into contracts which would allow them to gain some of the benefits of married couples. Sowell apparently does not realize that 9 of the 11 gay marriage amendments he's supporting strip this liberty away(specific disallowal of contracts entered into by gay couples which confer any facet of the benefits from a marriage).

As always, people who want to push a proposition in order to get it passed do not ask for everything all at once. They get the primary bill or 'right' passed, and then start tacking benifits and other rights on top of it. For example, Hillary Care. Hillary was an idiot, and tried to write her Universal health care package that involved TONS of benifits, and it didn't pass. If she wanted it, she should have passed a small package that would inevitably grow in size.

2) Sowell mistakenly assumes that extending a set of special privlidges that one group enjoys upon another group is some sort of favoritism, and not what it really is, destroying a system of favoritism that already exists.

No, you are looking at it as something that is supposed to be there in the first place, when it isn't. What he's saying, is that when special groups start seeking social justice and special rights, other groups will have to seek their justice as well in other areas. When that justice is reached, it starts all over again, and the rule of law will be ever-changing, and will contain no foundation. Considering how many different groups have how many different sets of values, that road leads to anarchy.

Sowell sets up a strawman so he can feel really proud about knocking it over. The idea that homosexuals are seeking approval with marriage is a joke. They're no more seeking approval than straight couples are. Anyone has the right to hold opinions about other people in whatever way they wish.

He is not using a strawman. That's why he singled out the 'activists'.

When you show me someone actually asking for a law requiring people to accept their lifestyle, I'll join you in shooting them down. What is being asked for is not approval, but simply equal legal footing, which is supposed to be guaranteed.

Here we go again with 'guaranteed'!! I don't see how a small group of individuals with a different lifestyle can claim special rights out of the clear blue sky. That will always be the case. It's not about holding someone down, it's about Anarchy. Maybe it seems to be 'a bit of the norm' for you, because the debate is always present, but I tend to block that out, because I see it for what it is.

Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already.

Did you even read what he said about the Aids issue?

Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.

Acutally, he studied under economics, behavioral studies, and history. He understands what happens when small splinter groups try to claim 'special rights' in order to get recognized by the government. This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

[toasty]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

What thefncrow said

Well put, dude. I agree with Yao that with the exception of that last little bit, your analysis of the issue is spot on. Kudos.

[Jenks]

benefits for couples who are rearing children

what about single people who are rearing children.

michael jackson?



ok, i'll get my coat.

[Civic_Zen]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

Then, Sowell digs himself a hole halfway to hell with the entire line about AIDS. Thomas Sowell, are you aware that the segment of the population which is seeing the highest rate of infection of HIV is women, and not men? I'm sure its just because all those women are muff-divers, right? Close to half the world's population of AIDS victims are women, but I'm sure its just all dykes, right? Give it a fucking rest already. Stick to economics, I hear that you actually make halfway decent arguments in that area that don't crumble to pieces the minute logic enters the arena.

Although a lot of your comments are logical and your arguments I can even respect, this is where I just have to chime in. Its evident that your spouting statistics without any real knowledge of the situation. The HIV rate in women isn't even close to that of men, and is barely growing at all. In fact its pretty much the same in women diagnosed with it every year, and growing exponentially in men. To think that AIDs doesn't grow, MAINLY, because of Gay men is a naive statement to say the least.

http://www.avert.org/statindx.htm

Statistics there from around the world. But I will be using only the statistics for here in the United States.

Here is the statistical summary for the USA. http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

Of the adults and adolescents with AIDS, 77% were men. Of these men,

* 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
* 22% were injection drug users (IDU)
* 11% were exposed through heterosexual contact
* 8% were both MSM and IDU.

Read those numbers and then spout off some more of your liberal rhetoric. The highest rate of infection is women not men?? Your opinions may be valid, but when you try to back them up with facts I think its you thats falling down the hole, or reaching the bottom of the barrel there.

To further prove my point, you can refer here http://www.avert.org/womstata.htm

In the HIV diagnoses by exposure category, it breaks down as follows:

Totals

2000 - 8,899
2001 - 8,630 (decline)
2002 - 8,633 (same as before)
2003 - 8,733 (barely inclined)

And then you have male to female comparissons in the AIDs exposure category (obviously different then HIV diagnoses)

2003 diagnoses - 31,614 male to 11,498 female, where as (as stated above) well above 50% of that is from male to male intercourse. There there are the cumulative numbers. 749,887 male to 170,679 female 440,887 of that 749,887 were from Gay intercourse.

These stats speak for themselves. You should be aware that I am GoogleMan, and none of your blatent statistical lies will sneak past everyone around here.

[davetlv]

Here we go again with 'guaranteed'!! I don't see how a small group of individuals with a different lifestyle can claim special rights out of the clear blue sky. That will always be the case. It's not about holding someone down, it's about Anarchy. Maybe it seems to be 'a bit of the norm' for you, because the debate is always present, but I tend to block that out, because I see it for what it is.

Cosmo, a couple of points if i may:

First off you are fixated with this notion that we (gay men and lesbians) are a group demanding special rights. We're not. Special rights infer rights that are not open to everyone in society. What we want is equal rights. Plain and simple.

Secondly being gay or lesbian, like being hetrosexual, is not a lifestyle - something that implies you make a choice in how you lead your life. I'm gay. Simple. I don't know why i'm gay. I know that being gay was not a choice i made - after all with all the predjuice againsts lesbians and gay men only a true mashochist would choose to be gay or lesbian, and believe me my friend i am no masochist.

My sexuality, no doubt like yours, is an element of who I, David, am, and believe me i am far more than just my sexuality.

Thirdly, i don't, at least is hope i don't, differentiate between people because of their sexuality. I don't consider gay or lesbian people as any different as heterosexual people and vis a versa. I believe every human adult can and should make decisions about their lives without governmental interference. The government (and i know i'm not American here but you can substitue most western countries here) however does make the difference. It says that because i was born gay, with an attraction to my own gender, i should be treated differently in the eyes of the law. Government says my relationships are not of equal weight in civil society as yours or my parents for that matter.

I have not set out to be different, i am who i am, government however ensures that i am different when in reality i just want to be treated by society in the same why you are.

[thesightless]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

Everyone DOES have the same rights here in America. But just because, as I said earlier, there are small groups that think new laws should be passed for utter recognition of their lifestyle, doesn't mean that they should be passed. Maybe I should get a group together to oppose driving on the right side of the road, because I believe it's wrong to keep me on the right side of the dotted line. Where is the freedom? I should have that right. I'm absolutely offended for the fact that I'm constrained to just one side of a two way street. Look at all that room over there!!

this is so true about society. just look at rasta lifestyle. technically it is a recoginzed religion in a few places, but since most of the mdernized nations view weed as illegal, they wont recognize the religion. however, since gay people dont do anything that the modern world views as illegal, they are accepted by lawmakers. let em live.

[toasty]

My sexuality, no doubt like yours, is an element of who I, David, am, and believe me i am far more than just my sexuality.

I've always thought this was a great, but often overlooked, point. Of the average day (or week, or month, or year, or whatever), how much time do we actually spend having sex? Not as much as we'd like, I'm sure, , but in all seriousness it makes up a miniscule percentage of what we do and who we are. It has never made any sense to me to view someone as wholly different and unworthy of the same rights that I have by virtue of a difference that is really pretty minor in the greater scheme of things.

[Jenks]

doesn't the average man think about something sexual every 8.something seconds? doesn't that make sex a pretty big part of our life? i'm with ya toasty, it doesn't make sense to me to view someone differently and unworthy of rights based on anything...just pointing that out...sex is a big part of our life.

[toasty]

doesn't the average man think about something sexual every 8.something seconds? doesn't that make sex a pretty big part of our life? i'm with ya toasty, it doesn't make sense to me to view someone differently and unworthy of rights based on anything...just pointing that out...sex is a big part of our life.

yeah, but it isn't ultimately who we are. When I introduce myself to someone, I never say, "Hi, I'm toasty, and I like to have sex with women." If someone were to ask me to describe myself, neither my sexuality nor my sexual experiences would even make the list. I define myself by my interests, the way I treat other people, what I do for fun, my ideology, etc.

On this board, for example, I never assume that people are gay or straight. I suspect that those on this board that have an impression of me probably think of me as, "that fucking liberal" before they think of me as "that straight guy."

Yes, I think about sex and it is a big part of my life, but I don't think homosexuals are different in this respect.

I guess the overarching point is that I -- as do most people -- have far more in common with homosexuals than I have differences.

[Jenks]

Re: Gay Marriage Rights

^agreed.

btw, i've hung out with you, you sooo do introduce yourself like that..."Hi, i'm toasty, i like to have sex with women!"

i've seen you in action in the courtroom too...

"Your Honor, the insurance company owes my client 4 million dollars, and i like sex with women!"

[thesightless]

i might wear a t-shirt that has ""hi, im seansightless, i like to have sex with women" out this weekend.

the only things i "dislike"(not the best word) about the gay society are those few standouts that do nothing to help out there "group"(can't think of a better term, im not calling gays a society, they are part of our society). people like the "queer eye" guys seriously go out and try to say " hey look at me, im gay and im changing the world to gay" , they intentionally give 100% to act different. my friend tom is gay, and he even says that outside of drag queens, there is nothing he cant deal withless than those cats. he says"they cant just be gay, they have to be flaming" i kinda understand him. :? touchy topic. have your opinions. just dont harm others.