Page: 12
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Today is a very important day in U.S. History. For the first time ever, same-sex couples will be able to wed in Massachusetts with the full blessing of the state.

The New York Times has a very good article on this issue. Many of the Conservative Opponents to this new policy have said that the public will see how this leads to disaster in the next two years before a ballot proposal to ban gay marriage in the Massachusetts State Constitution will go to the polls.

Yet none of these people have made any specific predictions into exactly why this is a mistake. They've said that gay marriage will undermine straight marriage, but they haven't articulated exactly how.

The fact that they have not been able to name a specific negative effect of gay marriage is, of course, evidence that they really aren't concerned about gay marriage causing harm, per se. Rather, it implies that they simply are offended by the idea and aren't willing to use that reason as justification for all this opposition.

I believe that in two years, people will see that gay marriage hasn't caused the sky to fall, it hasn't tripled the divorce rate, and it hasn't produced warped children. I think gay marriage is going to go the way of interracial marriage. After all, the arguments being used against it are identical.

Thoughts?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:So what's the public reaction to this in Massachusetts? It seems strange to me that Massachusetts could appear to be fairly liberal, but the entire east coast of canada is die hard conservative, dogmatic and closed minded and afraid gay marriage will cause imediate doom, Like it seems the two places are fairly similar in demographics, history etc..



Delete

OrangeBobo
SILVER Member since Nov 2003

OrangeBobo

veteran
Location: Guelph, ON, Canada

Total posts: 1389
Posted:Quote:
but the entire east coast of canada is die hard conservative, dogmatic and closed minded and afraid gay marriage will cause imediate doom,




Although I admit they are fairly closed minded here, I don't think that's going to last much longer. At least in Halifax, I've noticed just in the past four years that I've been here, that a) they don't like change b) after time can be forced to change c) will gripe and moan about it d) with time get over it.

I think right now this whole place is (definately) growing, and changing. I find that it's becoming more tolerant. But maybe that's just because I'm in the city. I'm afraid to see what it's like in the valley or somehting, even with all those small towns with universities in it. But I do think change is on it's way.

As for Massachusetts, I think that's excellent. Thankfully, at least one state isn't afraid to at least try it. And I agree with you Lightning, they just need their eyes opened to see that it's not going to end the world, and their lives wont' change much at all, unless they are directly affected by a gay marriage.

peaceubblol

~ Bobo


wie weit, wie weit noch?
fragst mich, wo wir gewesen sind...
du fehlst hier

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Actually, I misspoke. Gay marriages will begin at 12:01 AM Monday morning.

-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

mrFlibble
SILVER Member since Mar 2003

Ghostbuster
Location: York, UK

Total posts: 455
Posted:anything that pisses off the right wing is fine by me

Delete

SpitFire
GOLD Member since Dec 2002

Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Total posts: 2723
Posted:Now...if we could just get the Permanent Partners Act through Congress, I'll be very happy. biggrin

(Gay equivalent to the Financee Visa that allows straight bi-national couples to marry and the foreign partner to immigrate).



Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

Trillian
BRONZE Member since Feb 2004

Trillian

Llamas are larger than frogs.
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Total posts: 319
Posted:It's pretty much opposite in Ohio-they've passed resolutions forbidding it, and some people are hoping to change our state constitution to ban it as well...it is absolutely inconceivable how hateful and closed minded some people can be. Lightning, I agree-I really hope Massachusetts will open up people's minds a bit more.

"I know a good deal more than a boiled carrot."
"Fire!" "Where?" "Nowhere, I was just illustrating the misuse of free speech."

Delete

Dunc
GOLD Member since Aug 2003

Dunc

playing the days away
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingd...

Total posts: 7263
Posted:bounce bounce2 Yey for Massechusets! I saw this on the new this morning, all the folks queueing up for their licenses to get married and it made me smile biggrin

Lets hope this helps to push forward the desperately needed change in attitude towards equality for all people.


Let's relight this forum ubblove

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:so what happens if bush ammends the constitution and bans gay marriage *shudder*

Do those already married have to give up their legal marriage? Im sure it wont happen without a few court battles. I dunno, maybe a court battle would help the whole issue. When the lawyers representing the homosexual couple gets up, and makes valid points and the prosecution has no choice but to respond with something obscure and intangible like "It undermines straight marriage" it might change peoples minds. But probably not, peoples minds didn't change following the various cases where black people have fought to be legally defined as people and latter equal in the eyes of society.


Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:As long as they drink at separate water fountains and have to sit in the back of the bus, I don't care what they do.

wink (A bit of NYC sarcasm for ya on a Monday morning... better than a cup of coffee.)


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

SpitFire
GOLD Member since Dec 2002

Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Total posts: 2723
Posted:Good question robotface.

One thing I'm not sure of is what benefits gay couples get in marrying in MAss.

Straigh couples, when they marry, get over 1000 rights and privileges on a federal level...unmarried couples don't see those benefits until they tie the knot. However, gay marriage isn't recognized on the federal level, so I'm not sure what it means.

If Bush gets the constitutional amendment enacted, then it could well void the unions, but I'm not sure.

The arguments I hear against gay marriage are: a) it will undermine straight marriage (I really would like to know how)

b) Marriage is about procreation, thus must be reserved for people of opposite sex. (What about folks who can't or don't want children?)

c) it's about state's rights. Not all states want to recognize the legal contracts because those states happen to have a large population that consider themselves a part of the "moral right," and feel gay marriage is an abomination of all that is good and holy.

Mind you, I'm paraphrasing, and being a bit harsh on the arguments, but I still haven't heard one decent counterpoint to gay marriage yet.

Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a Texas representative, sent a reply to a note I sent condeming the proposed amendment.

Her stand is one about state's rights. She doesn't think states should be forced into recognizing the unions if they don't want to.

What she doesn't see is that by her very stand, she's discriminating against part of the US population. Though, perhpas she does see it, and doesn't care because that population happens to be a minority, and thus don't really count. There are days when I really do feel like a second class citizen. Reading her letter was one of those days.

Ah well. tongue to all of the two faced politicians.


Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:So I finally heard a "reasoned" argument in opposition of same-sex marriage.

The argument is that marriage and procreation are learned behaviors. Thus, by legitimizing gay marriage, we are not teaching children to marry people of the opposite gender and to have children. Thus, this will lead to the end of civilization as we know it because people will stop getting married and having children because gay couples will serve as role-models of alternate lifestyles.

That's deep, dude. Real deep. *beats on bongo drums*

ubblol


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

SpitFire
GOLD Member since Dec 2002

Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Total posts: 2723
Posted:LOL!! Oh that's a good one... *wipes a tear from her eye*

Actually, I heard a woman interviewed on NPR some time ago, at a Christian convention in Colorado who said something along the lines of:

Quote:
"If we allow gay marriage, then people will no longer have children, which will lead to a population decline, and we can't raise them (children) to fight for America against the Terrorists. The terrorists, meanwhile, will continue to have children and raise them to hate America and raise them with the mind to attack america. If we don't continue having children, then they will overwhelm us.

If we legalize gay marriage, then people won't have babies."



I paraphrased a bit of that. I can't recall the program. I nearly got into a car wreck because of her though. eek

I tell you...I am amazed at the ignorance of people in this country. Really.

Will someone from some other country please adopt me (AND Mand) so that we can escape the insanity????


Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Quote:
So I finally heard a "reasoned" argument in opposition of same-sex marriage.

The argument is that marriage and procreation are learned behaviors. Thus, by legitimizing gay marriage, we are not teaching children to marry people of the opposite gender and to have children. Thus, this will lead to the end of civilization as we know it because people will stop getting married and having children because gay couples will serve as role-models of alternate lifestyles.

That's deep, dude. Real deep. *beats on bongo drums*

ubblol



AAIGHT HOLD UP.

FIRSTLY, I am STRONGLY in favor of Gay marrage. But there are 'better' arguements against it. NONE of which I believe...

Let's try this one (again, I'm only playing devil's advocate):

***
By legalizing gay marrage you're expanding the definition of marrage to more than it was inteded. Why not go further? What if Lighning and Pounce and I are REALLY in love? Shouldn't the three of us be able to get married? We're all lovely, responsible people. We could raise children better than most families... why not let three people get married? And why stop there? Why not 10? Why can't I marry my dad? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal? We're not going to have children so there's no chance for imbreeding... why won't the state let me marry my dad? What about my dog? Is it POSSIBLE that someone in America loves their pet more than their spouse? Of course!!! WHY shouldn't they be able to divorce that abusive husband and marry that lovable dog?

By allowing two people of the same sex to marry, you're establishing a dangerous prescident (sp?)

Humans WERE constructed to need a man and a woman to procreate. By whatever God/Nature you believe in you can't argue that fundamental fact. By setting up artificial family systems you ARE going against evolutionary tradition. If heterosexual relationships stopped, we would all die, of course. For millions of evolutionary years our natural selection has solely survived due to heterosexual relationships and reproduction. ANY factor that prevents breeding hurts a species chances for evolutionary survival.

The human body was set up to provide pleasure sensors to promote breeding. Homosexual sex is simply a way of 'cheating' that system which has assured our evolutionary survival.

****

Hrmm, wow... it's not easy to argue for a side you don't believe in.... well, take those arguements above and refine them... maybe a rewrite or two. Again, I DON'T believe them... but they're better arguements than the ones you're suggesting. I'm sure there are more.

In order to better defend our own position, we must understand other's.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Also... an actually decent arguement (though not against gay marrage per se) is the arguement that individual states shouldn't be allowed to decide what marrage is and isn't.

I sort of agree with that one idealistically. I don't think that Texas should be able to ban interracial marrages while Utah allows for polygamy while New York allows you to marry at 18 and Nebraska allows you to marry at 16. Seems kinda silly.

But in actuality I'm happy that states like Mass are allowing gay marrage... of course.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:Most of those aren't good arguements, their fallacies.

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Quote:
Let's try this one (again, I'm only playing devil's advocate):

***
By legalizing gay marrage you're expanding the definition of marrage to more than it was inteded. Why not go further? What if Lighning and Pounce and I are REALLY in love? Shouldn't the three of us be able to get married? We're all lovely, responsible people. We could raise children better than most families... why not let three people get married? And why stop there? Why not 10? Why can't I marry my dad? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal? We're not going to have children so there's no chance for imbreeding... why won't the state let me marry my dad? What about my dog? Is it POSSIBLE that someone in America loves their pet more than their spouse? Of course!!! WHY shouldn't they be able to divorce that abusive husband and marry that lovable dog?

By allowing two people of the same sex to marry, you're establishing a dangerous prescident (sp?)



The school teachers these days. Can't even spell "precedent." Such a shame. wink

Ok, let's knock these down one-by-one.

We're not talking about polygamy or incest. However, we can stop at polygamy because incest and animal-human relationships are non-issues. Marriage is a contract entered into by consenting adults. That eliminates the whole dog issue. As for incest, there are solid medical reasons why this is inadvisable. If the union could result in children, there is a very high risk of genetic diseases in incest.

As for polygamy/polyandry, fine. It might be something we can debate at some point. The debate has come up in the past. Maybe polyamorous relationships will be legalized one day, maybe they won't.

However, that issue has nothing to do with gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage will have no effect on polygamy/polyandry. If you were to use that logic, then one might argue that the ban on polygamy/polyandry would lead to a ban on gay marriage. Clearly, this has not been the case, so the opposite is not true, either. Comparing polyamorus marriages to same-sex marriages is a non sequitur.


Quote:

Humans WERE constructed to need a man and a woman to procreate. By whatever God/Nature you believe in you can't argue that fundamental fact. By setting up artificial family systems you ARE going against evolutionary tradition. If heterosexual relationships stopped, we would all die, of course. For millions of evolutionary years our natural selection has solely survived due to heterosexual relationships and reproduction. ANY factor that prevents breeding hurts a species chances for evolutionary survival.

The human body was set up to provide pleasure sensors to promote breeding. Homosexual sex is simply a way of 'cheating' that system which has assured our evolutionary survival.




By this logic, women with anti-sperm antibodies and men with cartagener's syndrome (and anyone else with infertility) should not be allowed to marry.

Fact is that marriage is not simply about procreation because infertile couples can and do get married. And rather than being called "abomintions," they are treated with sympathy and allowed to adopt.

Furthermore, I categorically reject the argument that allowing gays to marry is in any way going to stop heterosexuals from having sex. Tell me, NYC, how is your sex drive affected by this gay marriage business?

So, NYC, I don't think that any of those arguments are any "better" than the one I presented because they are equally nonsensical. One relies on a slippery-slope, which is a classic logical fallacy, and the others are non-sequiturs.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Quote:
Also... an actually decent arguement (though not against gay marrage per se) is the arguement that individual states shouldn't be allowed to decide what marrage is and isn't.



I don't, and you just explained why. In some states with voter initiatives, it would be shockingly easy to pass a ban on interracial marriage. Just slip it on the ballot and get all your supporters to show up. That's how California got Gray Davis recalled, medical marijuana legalized, gay marriage banned, and a number of other rather bizarre decisions.

If the states should be allowed to decide, that could happen quite easily.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:This is from the NYTimes, quoting Rev. Ferdnando Miranda of a church in Boston:

Quote:
"It will do harm," he said. "It gives people the message that homosexuality is O.K. As people become exposed to homosexuality through the news, through television, through the movies, they become used to it."



The problem with the message that homosexuality is OK is...WHAT?

Will these people ever state a true negative outcome? Is the claim that more people will become gay?

What is WRONG with these people, are they mean-spirited or just plain stupid?


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

SpitFire
GOLD Member since Dec 2002

Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Total posts: 2723
Posted:They fear change, Lightning.

Doesn't make it any easier for the rest of us, and they certainly are loud enough to get a lot of the attention thrown their way...

Something else to note...

Marriage is an invention of man within society. It is not something determined by nature. Yes you need a man and a woman to procreate....but marriage is not something created by mother nature. IT's a man-made institution. Since it's a man made institution, then expanding it to allow gay marriage shouldn't hurt the "institution" itself.

Just out of curiousity, Lightning....

If civil unions granted all of the same benefits and priveleges that "marriage" does, would you be willing to accept civil unions instead of gay marriage?

I'm still thinking on that one myself...


Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:I'll back up... cuz you're missing the point. (Again, only a devil's advocate point)

Marrage has been set and defined for thousands of years by the Bible as the union of a single man and a single woman. (And yes, we are a Christian country... don't go getting all naive and believing this whole separation of church and state crap. I'm made to pledge allegance to God every morning and every time I pay in cash.)

By redefining "marrage" as anything BUT how it had been defined for thousands of years, we are opening the entire concept up to further redefinition.

THAT is a VALID arguement against allowing gay marriage which I strongly DISAGREE with.

**

In other news, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC I see no reason why I, as a 31 year old man should not be allowed to marry my father, whereas another 31 year old man could. There's no larger breeding issue than with any other gay union.

And my poligamy arguement still stands. In fact, if I found me some cute bisexual girls... that doesn't sound like such a bad idea... ubbangel


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:They fear loseing souls to satan. Atleast that seems like the nearest and most obvious conclusion.

If I had the same religious beliefs and believed gay marriage would spread homosexuality I to would be opposed to it. Wouldn't you? Or you would just let all those souls rot in hell?


Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:nyc the biblical sense of marriage has nothing to do with legality. The legal aspect is only a few hundred years old.

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Heck no. I do think that having positive gay role models allows more people to get in touch with their own sexuality and, therefore, increases the probability and frequency of people living a homosexual lifestyle.

I think it's great.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Quote:
nyc the biblical sense of marriage has nothing to do with legality. The legal aspect is only a few hundred years old.



Well the legality is based on the biblical sense but if chaning "thousand" to "hundred" makes you feel better than go for it.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

SpitFire
GOLD Member since Dec 2002

Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Total posts: 2723
Posted:religious beliefs are just that...religious beliefs.

We live in a country that guarantees freedom of religion according to the bill of rights. While the nation is predominantly Christian, that doesn't mean I have to be....it also doesn't mean everyone is.

People are entitled to their religious beliefs...they are not entitled, however to forcing their beliefs on other people.



Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:spitfire who's forcing anything in this context? The quote is a guy offering his opinnion. I think by labeling them as biggots and people who are afraid of change (which many of them are but not all) your just being intellectually lazy. It's no diffrent then them assumeing all homosexuals are promiscious communists.



nyc it's more then a number of years, Now it's purely a legal issue. Why did marriage start having legal benefits? So lords could expand their power by marrying off their siblings.



So what the hell does that have to do with today? and why should we care if we redefine it?


Delete

SpitFire
GOLD Member since Dec 2002

Mand's Girl....and The Not So Shy One
Location: Calgary, Alberta Canada

Total posts: 2723
Posted:Quote:
They fear loseing souls to satan. Atleast that seems like the nearest and most obvious conclusion.

If I had the same religious beliefs and believed gay marriage would spread homosexuality I to would be opposed to it. Wouldn't you? Or you would just let all those souls rot in hell?



robotface, I was addressing this quote directly, but I got off track a bit.

When it comes to religion, I do not try to convert other people to my view. Religion is a personal matter, and I have a real issue with people who try to "convert" those who have a different set of beliefs.

Even when I did call myself "christian," I didn't try to convert people...so if they were gay or supported gays, then that was their choice.

But then, I've always been a bit more openmidned than most hard-lined Christians....and no longer consider myself a Christian...far from it in fact.



Solitude sometimes speaks to you, and you should listen.

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:well the same here, but only because when I was christian I didn't believe rather you go to hell or go to heaven worked the same way a lot of hard line christians do, and now, I don't believe in heaven or hell although I am religious.

But, If I was in a position where I A)Believed an action was a sin and would condem people to hell and b) A piece of legislation would promote the sin, I would be opposed to it to.

Ive never believed in A) and I don't think any rules of the government are going to determine where peoples souls will go.


Delete

NYC


NYC

NYC
Location: NYC, NY, USA

Total posts: 9232
Posted:Quote:
religious beliefs are just that...religious beliefs.

We live in a country that guarantees freedom of religion according to the bill of rights. While the nation is predominantly Christian, that doesn't mean I have to be....it also doesn't mean everyone is.

People are entitled to their religious beliefs...they are not entitled, however to forcing their beliefs on other people.




What the heck country do you live in? I gotta move THERE! wink

Also, robotface, you seem to have totally lost the fact that I stated I was argueing a point that I don't personally believe in so I'm stopping. I knew that would get too difficult.


Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]

Delete

robotface


member


Total posts: 190
Posted:uh why? because I used the word hell once?

I completly realize your playing devils advocate, although apparently your not very good at it and your not very dedicated.



Delete

Page: 12