Originally Posted By hopemax The argument is that if you say a woman can marry a man, but not a woman, or a man can marry a woman, but not a man, a decision is being made on the basis of gender, which would violate equal protection laws. Men and woman are denied equally the ability to marry a sibling, pet, minor child, multiple people.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Add to that the fact that there is ample evidence, if not of a single "gay gene" yet, then certainly that sexual orientation is innate to the individual. Nowhere, AFIAK, is there any evidence that being attracted to one's sibling specifically is an innate sexual orientation.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<And 2 gay people from devout religious backgrounds wouldn't?>> many Gay people struggle with this - they try and assimulate into a "normal" relationship - which in the short term and on the surface can appear happy - but in the long term they mostly end up hurting everyone involved. People can only live a lie for so long.
Originally Posted By dshyates " but in the long term they mostly end up hurting everyone involved." Yup. Ask Ex Mrs. McGreevey, Mrs. Haggard, and my Ex.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains <<Yup. Ask Ex Mrs. McGreevey, Mrs. Haggard, and my Ex.>>. I feel for all involved in these relationships... For the straight people thinking they are entering an honest relationship with another straight person. For the Gay person who feels they have to hide their true selves and live a lie just to appease society. And for the children who don't understand why their family is falling apart. It is just so unfair to all of the parties.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 But according to some fairly clueless people, because gay people can marry people of the opposite sex, we are therefore not being discriminated against. Get a clue, people!
Originally Posted By debtee <A bunch of radicals at a Pride march probably turn more people off of the cause than aid it. But demonstrating wonderful loving case studies of gay families, using the power of debate to make it an issue around love (moreso than sex), protection of families (of all types) and questioning why one set of rights is not better or worse, but should be equal to another, is far more likely to support the cause.> hmmm well I think here is where some of the issue lies. Why should Gay people have to demonstrate "wonderful loving case studies of gay families" in order to make people support their cause? That's once again taking away equality.
Originally Posted By mele Well, none of the people who were anti-gay marriage gave a crap about any of the loving stories posted in any of the threads. They also didn't care about any of the other things posted in the threads. They just had their beliefs and no amount of honest questions, facts, loving stories or anything was going to turn them around. Seriously, we tried it ALL and got nothing. In fact, the more questions we asked and the more loving stories we presented, they simply stopped posting. Like I've said about 5 times now...we're never going to get equality by sitting around waiting for them to dole it out. They think they've got God on their side and mere humans have no right to question it. How can you fight that kind of logic? It doesn't work with religious extremists. Nothing trumps their belief in what they think their God wants. Please, show me one group who was given equality simply by asking politely and waiting for it to magically happen. History does not back this theory up.
Originally Posted By debtee ^ Yes that's true Mele. In fact it's been an eye opener for me to see how hard everyone did try in those other threads and yet they were so brain-washed. They are religious extremists and you just can't reason with them.
Originally Posted By Mr F If they wanted to pass a law allowing a man to marry his sister, I would be all for it. If a man married his sister, that would be there business and that would have nothing to do with me, or effect me from living my life, or force me to do something I don't want to do. Who am I to tell someone how that can or can't live there life, or who they should or shouldn't love. If anything it would increase state income. But this is completely besides the point. I don't see thousands of people marching in support of incest marriages, I don't see incest rights activist fighting hard to get incest marriages legal. I don't see petitions being signed by thousands of people to get incest marriage legalized. I do however see LOTS of people fighting to get gay marriage legalized. A Ban on Gay marriage in California is Unconstitutional beside is discriminates according to gender. Since the law says a woman cannot marry another women, for the simple fact that they are both female, THAT is gender discrimination which is a violation of the constitution. Banning incest marriages however, doesn't discriminate against gender, or race, or sexual orientation, or disabilities, it discriminates against family relations, which is not a violation of the constitution. And anyways, California's constitution doesn't specify that marriage HAS to be between two unrelated people.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Please, show me one group who was given equality simply by asking politely and waiting for it to magically happen. History does not back this theory up.> Correct. We have to fight, and there are a number of avenues we can take. I think most people remain persuadeable, and I keep trying to persuade. Some people probably aren't, but I hold out hope. And remember that lots of people lurk, and get their minds changed. Look how many straight people have changed their minds on this already compared to just 10 years ago. They didn't change their minds for no reason.
Originally Posted By mele I agree, Dabob. The lurkers are the reason I continue to post reasonable and logical questions (which never were answered). It sometimes helps to debate just to firm up our own beliefs but it's nice to know that others are reading, too.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Look how many straight people have changed their minds on this already compared to just 10 years ago. They didn't change their minds for no reason./// I'm sure this applies to a percentage but my guess is that biggest reason we see more acceptance now vs even 10 years back is not due to 'flippers' but that people die and new souls take their place. The newcomers are more inclined to accept than the more elder demographic. So according to my theory even if there were no demonstrations/mailings/court action in time the anti same gender marriage old guard will die off steadily leaving for the most part no opposition to the movement.
Originally Posted By Mr F Hopefully all those elders die off soon and we will get more opend minded people in this world.
Originally Posted By mele <<the anti same gender marriage old guard will die off steadily >> Oh goodie. Something to look forward to.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm sure this applies to a percentage but my guess is that biggest reason we see more acceptance now vs even 10 years back is not due to 'flippers' but that people die and new souls take their place. The newcomers are more inclined to accept than the more elder demographic.> That's part of it, but not all of it. I personally know a number of people who have changed their minds on it. I'll bet there are some straight people here, particularly over 40, who if they're honest will admit that they didn't used to favor it and now they do. But the generational change is important. A solid majority of Americans under 30 favor marriage equality. 20 years from now, that's Americans under 50. And just as VERY few people who were against segregation turned around and started favoring it, yet millions went the other way, the movement here is all in one direction. It's coming. As with segregation, you can be on the right side of history, or the wrong side.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think that's true, Dabob. It's painfully slow, but progress is often measured in two steps forward, one back.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Nope, just asking where the line is drawn, what is ok and what is not, and who decides? That's all.>> It's a fair question. Essential, actually. Why would gay marriages be allowed but incestuous marriages forbidden? I think there are two simple legal principles in the US that would lead to making that logical disctinction. 1) In general, our government is disallowed to prevent citizens from living their lives as they choose, unless those choices would harm others. In this more scientifically enlightened world and one that now has more experience with gay marriage, we've learned that there is no evidence that gay marriage harms the gays who marry, the children they raise, the institution of heterosexual marriage, or society as a whole. On the other hand, there is evidence that incestuous relationships might be harmful to the offspring produced, and by extension then, also to society. There has certainly been a societal distaste for both gay marriage and incestuous relationships for a long time -- long enough that people have assumed that this disdain is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to prohibit the unpopular behaviors. But popular disapproval is not, and never has been, sufficient cause to prohibit a harmless behavior. I think it's an easy distinction. Here's an analogous question: Why is it that any adult with a computer in the US can legally access unlimited depictions of heterosexual adults engaged in all sorts of sexual behavior, but simply possessing a single photo of a child having sex is enough to send that computer-owner to prison for 15 years? Easy. Because the consensual adult sex depicted is victimless, no-one is forced to view it, and the fact that people do view it doesn't harm others. But kiddie porn, de facto, is not consensual and not victimless. It's not about the fact that it offends anyone. It's about whether it actually harms them or not. 2) Legally, we are not to discriminate against people for innate qualities. Homosexuality was widely viewed as a personal choice and/or a mental illness up until the late 1900's. Now we know differently. We know that people are gay in the same way that they may be Asian, female, or left-handed. It's neither a choice nor an inferior state. Therefore, there is no valid legal reason to prevent them from enjoying the same rights that citizens of other classes enjoy. I agree that the "Where do you draw the line?" question is fascinating. But, using the principles of the US Constitution, it's clear on which side of the line gay marriage falls.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle Excellent post, Inspector! It astounds me that the arguments for gay marriage can be so reasoned and sensible (I'm talking in content, not necessarily in tone - I know there's a lot of passion and name-calling on both sides of the debate) while the arguments against gay marriage tend to boil down to "people will marry their dogs!" and "we need to protect the sanctity of marriage!" - which are both very easily shot down (dogs can't enter into a legal contract; marriage has no inherent sanctity, only what the two members bring to it). My friend's brother was foaming at the mouth about how gay marriage shouldn't be legal because it isn't "right". This from a guy whose now-wife cheated on him in a public toilet with the best man at their engagement party and who only went through with the wedding because they'd already bought a house together. I had to laugh.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>hmmm well I think here is where some of the issue lies. Why should Gay people have to demonstrate "wonderful loving case studies of gay families" in order to make people support their cause?<<< I think maybe I did not make myself as clear as I could have. Radicalism (for any cause - disabiltiy, gay rights, children's rights, elder rights, gender, fundraising, campaigning) around contentious issues seem to do more harm than good. By pursuing multiple platforms and really concentrating on logic and moderate thinking, progress is more likely to be accepted.
