Originally Posted By ecdc To those still on the fence: bigotry has no place in our country. Every time we've tried, subsequent generations have been embarrassed and stunned at how their parents and grandparents could behave in such a way. Don't put yourself in the position of making your descendants try and apologize for your beliefs and your behavior. Don't put one of your children or grandchildren in the position of having to explain why you didn't support equal rights for a fellow American. Gay marriage isn't just inevitable legally, it's the right thing to do.
Originally Posted By mele What children and grandchildren? There will be no people left if gays get married.
Originally Posted By Elderp "Don't put one of your children or grandchildren in the position of having to explain why you didn't support equal rights for a fellow American." I don't really have an interest in the gay marriage debate.... However, I find the concept of equality and American interesting. I have no concept of equality in America. In fact if I had to characterize America I would say we are an establishment of unequality. Any reforms for equality in America have only come out of heavy tensions that usually end up in casuality counts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Really, this argument went game, set, match, Dabob2 in post 208.> Dabob's post 208 simply repeated the same false arguments he's made in the past. The author of the pieces I linked to did not ignore the idea that correlation does not equal causation - he clearly addressed it. There simply is no other candidate to explain why the decline in marriage increased when gay marriage was adopted. <The inability to respond is right there for everyone to see.> I am fully capable of replying, but I'm not replying to distortion, dismissal, and demonization. Again, if you want to respond to what I actually said, ask honest questions, and skip the insults, then I'll reply to you with honest answers. So far, that hasn't happened.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Still no legal arguments. And on that topic, a legal argument to be made is what level of scrutiny should be used, rational basis or strict scrutiny? If discriminaton base don sexual orientation is considered to be less than discriminating on the basis of gender, then rational basis could be used and a ban would stand a better chance of being upheld. But as I've said before, if courts choose to go down that road, then there's a presumption being made that sexual orientation is more of a choice than it is something that's innate, and the courts don't want to try and get into THAT fray. So there, Douglas, I gave you something to use for the foundation of a legal argument, since up to noe you haven't offered any. Citing studies from Norway or Sweden really isn't going to work in a court of law. By the way, we still don't have kids, and never will. Yet, I'm still married.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder One thing that's telling, though. Rather than try and justify a ban under the Federal or a state consitution, notice than the anti's are trying to get constitutional bans instead. A not so subtle way of acknowledging any present argument is weak at best.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Still no legal arguments.> As I've mentioned to you before, this isn't strictly a legal matter. The law can, and quite likely will, be changed. <By the way, we still don't have kids, and never will. Yet, I'm still married.> Despite your efforts, this is not about you. Further, despite your efforts and the efforts of others here, it's not about me. <A not so subtle way of acknowledging any present argument is weak at best.> It's an acknowledgement that some people are willing to distort the law to make it say something that is against the will of the people.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Maybe you're not as smart as people give you credit for, after all.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>There simply is no other candidate to explain why the decline in marriage increased when gay marriage was adopted.<< The divorce rate since interracial marriage has been legal has increased in America. So, interracial marriage must be to blame. The lengths to which people will go to justify their bigotry is astounding, but not unprecedented.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>skip the insults<< Well, see, you are arguing in favor of bigotry. If you find it insulting to be considered a bigot, then I suggest you reconsider your position on the matter.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, see, you are arguing in favor of bigotry.> No, I'm not. But keep up the demonizing and distortions. I'm sure it will help you win the argument.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm sure it will help you win the argument.<< People seeing bigotry for what it is is what will win the argument. Make all the arguments you like against gay marriage -- nothing new there, just dust off the playbook for the things people said about interracial marriage. It should make you feel great discomfort lining up on that side.
Originally Posted By mele <<It should make you feel great discomfort lining up on that side.>> No, haven't you heard? Doing things that make you feel good is the immoral way. You should be worried about your soul and the fact that you might be...Canadian someday?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <People seeing bigotry for what it is is what will win the argument.> But claiming that people are bigots when they are not will not. <It should make you feel great discomfort lining up on that side.> My only allegiance is to the truth. If I'm wrong, you could show where I'm wrong. That instead you attack, distort, and dismiss, shows that I'm not.
Originally Posted By bubsmom For fear of being blasted out of this topic, I can't just sit by and say nothing. I can not fathom the argument that it's "ok" to discriminate against a sector the of the population. Rgardless of what some may think; We as a nation did this with inter-racial marriage; we did this with segragation-we couldn't get past it; and the supreme court stepped in to help us along the way over 60 years ago. The "majority" of the population kicked and bucked; but we came through it- as a better country and some were changed in their mind set. It opened our hearts and minds. Any time we treat seperate, but equal, it equates to discrimination. Period. We're not talking about the ridiculous concepts of marrying cousins, brothers and sisters; tri-marriages, etc... So please- don't run down that path- If anyone had someone gay close to them; someone they cared about and loved; and they were in a monogomous relationship and just wanted to show their love and comittment as others are able...they may change their minds. That was my 2 cents...
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The bigots I was refering to are the guys in the right wing noise machine that have demonized this issue and "gays" in general. << The difference is that their bigotry is somehow based in logic. They're demagoguing and pandering to fears based on ignorance in an effort to influence votes. While it's appalling, it's at least understandable. It's the ignorant folks that they're pandering to that's the real problem. These people are given 'safe harbor' for their beliefs and shown that it's still acceptable to demonize a segment of society. >> As I've mentioned to you before, this isn't strictly a legal matter. The law can, and quite likely will, be changed. << It already has been changed. What you're advocating for is to revert back. Why? Do you even live in california? What's it to you anyway? You've got no horse in this race, but you still want to actively deny equality for me and countless others. You say it's out of concern for "the children" and yet you don't have any. You're already married to a woman, so you already have all the rights and benefits of a state recognized marriage - the same ones you seek to deny to same-sex couples, because they don't procreate. How is this different from YOU! This is all just some academic exercise hypocrisy for you. And yet you're quick to point the finger of "distortion, dismissal and demonization" at others.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... and the supreme court stepped in to help us along the way over 60 years ago. The "majority" of the population kicked and bucked; but we came through it - as a better country and some were changed in their mind set. << Overall, I'd agree. But an unintended consequence was to morph the republican party into champions of regressive policy. All those disaffected southern white voters flocked to the GOP, who were only too happy to assimilate their ignorance and fears into their political platform. And look where we are today.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If I'm wrong, you could show where I'm wrong.<< I have, numerous times, explained the flaw in your beloved study of the Netherlands, and you dismiss it all, naturally. I have directed you to several sources that have unraveled the whole thing, and you, naturally, dismiss them. I could link to them all again, but you'd naturally dismiss them. You believe that correlation = causation. You have said "there is simply" nothing else that could possibly be at work there to explain the marriage rates, which means your allegiance to "truth" is pretty subjective. >>But claiming that people are bigots when they are not will not.<< People who argue in favor of bigotry are bigots, whether the term causes them discomfort or not. People who do not wish to be bigots alter their behavior and attitudes so as not to argue in favor of perpetuating bigotry. You don't get to just say you're not a bigot, and then go ahead and argue for more bigotry. It just doesn't work like that. And that's your problem, not mine. But don't expect me not to point out when someone is a bigot. I'm tired of it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You believe that correlation = causation.> No, I don't. And neither does the author of the articles I linked to. Repeating this canard doesn't make it true. <You don't get to just say you're not a bigot, and then go ahead and argue for more bigotry.> Just because you don't agree with a position doesn't mean it's bigotry. I could argue that not giving social security benefits to everyone under 65 is violating their rights, and that everyone who is against expanding social security benefits to everyone is a bigot against the young. That doesn't make it so.
