Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

[Jim]

Their relationship doesn't need validation from Christians, just the secular Republic they live within and support with their tax dollars.

 

Validation isn't the right word but we all do want to be accepted. You could give gays all the legal rights of married people without calling it a marriage. I don't think this would be, nor should be, acceptable to gays.

 

I can't see any ground for the religious argument any more than I can see the FDA being offensive to Islamic and Jewish people due to their approval of pork based meats. Does allowing pork to be classified as a proper editable meat and non-kosher foods "cheapen" or "threaten" religous peoples' choice to eat kosher and non-pork meats?

 

Could you see a religious argument if you believed that marriage was an institution created by God for men and women?

[Mokele]

This "bigotry" nonsense... it's REVPREZ behavior. And you all know it.

 

Incorrect. It's the very definition of it, and I refuse to call it anything less. Those who advocate this ammendment are no better than any KKK klansman, and we all know it.

 

This is how they win; they insist on using buzzwords because the truth sounds too bad.

 

Well, I'm not playing the euphemism game. It's plain and simple bigotry, I'll call it that openly, and I encourage anyone and everyone else to do so as well.

 

Mokele

[padren]

Validation isn't the right word but we all do want to be accepted. You could give gays all the legal rights of married people without calling it a marriage. I don't think this would be' date=' nor should be, acceptable to gays.

 

Could you see a religious argument if you believed that marriage was an institution created by God for men and women?[/quote']

 

Marriage is a legal arrangement as far as the law is concerned. Athiests can get married just as easily as anyone else (unless they are gay athiests).

 

While many people have religious ceremonies that they feel is more important than the legal elements (and I can respect people who feel that way) as a society it has no requirement. There is nothing in any holy text about judges performing weddings, yet it is common practice under the law.

 

 

While there are struggles within various churches to accept gays as members and even allow religious marriages, that is not at all what gay rights advocates mean about gay marriage - they are advocating the same rights that legal marriage provides sterile athiest hetrosexual couples.

[Severian]

Heterosexuals deserve tax breaks and homosexuals do not because... why?

 

Strawmanning again I see. I never said that they should be treated differently.

 

So' date=' how does the tax break issue apply to gay marriage specifically? Is it any different than interracial marriages, or marriages between sterile couples?

[/quote']

 

Let me put it this way. Imagine that there was a law which said that white people who bought an SUV would be given a lump sum gift of money from the state. This was only for white people, not blacks or hispanics. The minorities would no doubt (and rightly) complain that this was discrimination against them. So what is the right course of action? Should the government extend the scheme to blacks and hispanics? No - it should remove the lump sum payment from whites.

 

Why extend a stupid law to a new part of the community in the name of equality rather than get rid of it entirely?

[bascule]

Strawmanning again I see. I never said that they should be treated differently.

 

So you would support some measure that would afford them all the same benefits of married heterosexual couples? (even though it may not be under the auspices of 'marriage')

[padren]

Strawmanning again I see. I never said that they should be treated differently.

 

 

 

Let me put it this way. Imagine that there was a law which said that white people who bought an SUV would be given a lump sum gift of money from the state. This was only for white people' date=' not blacks or hispanics. The minorities would no doubt (and rightly) complain that this was discrimination against them. So what is the right course of action? Should the government extend the scheme to blacks and hispanics? No - it should remove the lump sum payment from whites.

 

Why extend a stupid law to a new part of the community in the name of equality rather than get rid of it entirely?[/quote']

 

 

It is fine to be against the marriage tax break, and against SUV ones too. That is a question of geninue debate. As long as a tax break is on the books though, and appears to be likely to stay there, is it not fair to believe it should be applied equally?

In your example for instance, do you think it is worse to have an SUV tax break that is also racist, or an SUV tax that is not racist?

 

The issue of the tax break for marriages is one debate, and whether it should (should it exist) discriminate against gay people is another.

 

It would be like denying black people entrance to the same schools as white people and saying, since you don't think school should be run by the government (a stance not too uncommon among libertarians) that no effort should be made to open those doors to black people...even while the doors exist for the moment.

 

Lets keep the two debates seperate.

[Severian]

So you would support some measure that would afford them all the same benefits of married heterosexual couples? (even though it may not be under the auspices of 'marriage')

 

Yes, of course, as long as the tax break were removed (ie. the contract would be about rights) and there was no implicit or explicit requirement that they engage in predetermined bedroom activities. I would also want it open to everyone, so a brother and sister, or two platonic friends, or one guy and his hareem, or a mini communist collective (or whomever) could all share the same rights.

[Severian]

It is fine to be against the marriage tax break' date=' and against SUV ones too. That is a question of geninue debate. As long as a tax break is on the books though, and appears to be likely to stay there, is it not fair to believe it should be applied equally?

[/quote']

 

I don't see why this should be. The tax break no longer exists in the UK, so I don't see why it should not be removed in the US.

 

It would be like denying black people entrance to the same schools as white people and saying, since you don't think school should be run by the government (a stance not too uncommon among libertarians) that no effort should be made to open those doors to black people...even while the doors exist for the moment.

 

If I thought that no schools should be run by the government then I would be supporting the abolishion of state run schools, and encouraging people not to use them, not trying to get more people into them.

[bascule]

*boggle*

 

Heterosexuals deserve tax breaks and homosexuals do not because... why?

 

Strawmanning again I see. I never said that they should be treated differently.

 

So you would support some measure that would afford them all the same benefits of married heterosexual couples?

 

Yes, of course, as long as the tax break were removed

 

So, umm, yeah, back to my original question then...

[Severian]

You have a point, or are you just 'boggling'?

[bascule]

You have a point, or are you just 'boggling'?

 

So, umm, yeah, back to my original question then...

 

Heterosexuals deserve tax breaks and homosexuals do not because... why?

 

Cut-and-paste posts are fun

[Severian]

I think you may have misunderstood my post. When I said "Yes, of course, as long as the tax break were removed" I meant removed from everyone, not just removed for gay couples. The 'everyone' in that implies I am treating them all in the same way.

[Pangloss]

Well' date=' when it comes down to it, the only argument I'm really seeing from the supporters of the ban is that it will, in some way, undermine the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage (and, apparently, a 50% divorce rate does not)

 

This is suitible justification to deny people the same benefits regardless of their sexual orientation?

 

Is there something I'm missing here? Because the application of the word "bigotry" here seems apt. They're attempting to write religious doctrine intolerant of a particular social demographic into the Constitution.[/quote']

 

This seems to be in stark contrast from your earlier post.

 

 

So who's the bigger asshole:

 

Are they assholes, or are they being "apt"?

[Pangloss]

Pangloss' date=' I am curious how you define bigot, and how you would size up the differences between this civil rights struggle and others that clearly contained bigotry among the opposition.

[/quote']

 

I don't disagree with the characterization, per se. I object to the pointless and perhaps even counter-productive inflamation of the debate.

 

There's a reason why we have forum rules here that would prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening. WHY are people asking for LESS from the floor of the United States Senate? What do we think will be solved by BAD behavior?

[swansont]

Well' date=' when it comes down to it, the only argument I'm really seeing from the supporters of the ban is that it will, in some way, undermine the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage (and, apparently, a 50% divorce rate does not)

[/quote']

 

It has never been adequately explained to me how this undermining occurs by allowing gay marriage.

 

I also think that the Constitution is primarily a document that limits what the government can do to the people in the course of governing, and not about limiting the rights of the people. (The eighteenth amendment was sooo successful at this, too) i.e it's about what we all are allowed to do, not what some of us aren't.

 

The United States was originally settled by people seeking freedom, many of whom were being persecuted by governments who were not accountable to the people, and the ideals and lessons inspired by this are embodied in constitution, especially the bill of rights. It's sad that there are some who are forgetting (or possibly never learned) this concept. I don't see how anyone can say they are promoting freedom when they support passing amendments that restrict the rights of a minority section of the population.

[Mokele]

I object to the pointless and perhaps even counter-productive inflamation of the debate.

 

See, I disagree. Not that it's inflamatory (though honestly I don't care if it hurts their feelings), but that it's pointless.

 

A good chunk of politics is winning the word game, creating buzzwords that are appealing to your side and getting your opponents to use them too; a war of definition memes, if you will. When you start using their meme, you've already lost, or at least suffered a major setback, because now they can discuss whatever it is without sounding like a loon, but you *do* sound like an extremist for attacking it and calling a spade a spade.

 

Then there's the issue of debate; this is what these people want, to pretend that there's a legitimate debate, like the creationists. By acting as if they may have reasonable points, which they don't, it gives them a false credibility which makes the public (who, let's face it, will believe almost anything they're told) more likely to believe them.

 

I fail to see how this is even remotely bad. So the truth is unpleasant and involves hurtful words. Does that mean we should avoid it? I say no. In fact, I see such things as productive, since they strip the layer of lies and euphemisms away and get to the real core of the matter.

 

Most of all, though, I don't see why we should self-censor what you yourself agree is a legitimate characterization. This isn't mud-slinging, flaming, insulting or just riling people up for the sake of it; this is a legitimate observation that a particular bill/action/position fits the definition of something that is very, very bad. Avoiding that is just caving to the pressure to use their memes, hobbling yourself, and more importantly, refusing to state the facts.

 

So, in breif, I don't think it's bad, I think it can be *more* productive than self-censorship for propriety's sake, and I think that being willing to bluntly call a spade a spade is not only a legitimate debate tactic, but a powerful one (which is why the most trusted news figure in the US is Jon Stewart; he'll cut away the garbage and go right to the idiotic core, albeit with much more humor).

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Severian, I wish I had your gift with words, sir. That was just brilliant. Not bad at all for a heartless bigot!

 

I happen to share the view that banning gay marriage is a bad thing, but I think the posters in this thread are completely off the deep end in declaring anyone who takes the opposite view to be a bigot, and then defending that as a valid form of debate. I'm sorry guys, that's just how I see it.

 

Mokele that post was.... disappointing. I think you know that insulting people is not how you change minds.

 

I'm just going to stop here, because I have a lot of respect for you guys but I'm just not going to see eye to eye with you on this.

[Sisyphus]

Is there a less insulting word for bigot?

[Dak]

See' date=' I disagree. Not that it's inflamatory (though honestly I don't care if it hurts their feelings), but that it's pointless.

 

A good chunk of politics is winning the word game, creating buzzwords that are appealing to your side and getting your opponents to use them too; a war of definition memes, if you will. When you start using their meme, you've already lost, or at least suffered a major setback, because now they can discuss whatever it is without sounding like a loon, but you *do* sound like an extremist for attacking it and calling a spade a spade.

 

Then there's the issue of debate; this is what these people want, to pretend that there's a legitimate debate, like the creationists. By acting as if they may have reasonable points, which they don't, it gives them a false credibility which makes the public (who, let's face it, will believe almost anything they're told) more likely to believe them.

 

I fail to see how this is even remotely bad. So the truth is unpleasant and involves hurtful words. Does that mean we should avoid it? I say no. In fact, I see such things as productive, since they strip the layer of lies and euphemisms away and get to the real core of the matter.

 

Most of all, though, I don't see why we should self-censor what you yourself agree is a legitimate characterization. This isn't mud-slinging, flaming, insulting or just riling people up for the sake of it; this is a legitimate observation that a particular bill/action/position fits the definition of something that is very, very bad. Avoiding that is just caving to the pressure to use their memes, hobbling yourself, and more importantly, refusing to state the facts.

 

So, in breif, I don't think it's bad, I think it can be *more* productive than self-censorship for propriety's sake, and I think that being willing to bluntly call a spade a spade is not only a legitimate debate tactic, but a powerful one (which is why the most trusted news figure in the US is Jon Stewart; he'll cut away the garbage and go right to the idiotic core, albeit with much more humor).

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

 

The problem with that is that it's only valid if bigotry is actually occouring. which it is in this case, but my point is that, as an argumentative tactic, merely labelling something as bigotted and then dismissing it is poor reguardless of the justification of the labelling.

 

Pangaloss was right: this is revprezing, along with defending it by classifying it as 'calling a spade a spade'. Not saying that you are trolling/being a tit, BUT, from the point of view of a casual observer, the two are indestinguishable. Where is the reasoning, within the original quote of the senator, that makes it clear that the 'bigot' label is justified and not mearly a convienient 'get out of argument free card'.

 

I agree with your points, to the point where i definately dont think it's bad that the senator included the quoted phrase as a summary of his argument, BUT if it's the whole of the argument (which i doubt it was) then it doesn't really help to convey the rational to an intelligent listener, as the whole argument boils down to 'your a bigot'; 'no im not'.

 

Hardly intelligent discource. (although i should point out that 'your a bigot because (insert very short sentance here) so there' would have been acceptable imo.

[Dak]

soz, post went through twice.

[Jim]

Pangaloss was right: this is revprezing, along with defending it by classifying it as 'calling a spade a spade'.

 

Behold the posthumous power of rezprez. His name has now become a verb.

 

Without reviewing the whole thread to see who said what, I can see how the question of bigotry could be a legitimate topic of debate. I suppose it all comes down to the race analogy. 1. Is the discrimination based upon an immutable characteristic? 2. Has the class at issue been subjected to a long term history of damaging discrimination? 3. How compelling is the state interest in the discrimination?

 

1. Probably. I'm willing to be educated on this issue.

2. Yes, albeit not as severely as were African Americans.

3. There was no good faith argument that there was a state interest in discriminating against African Americans. Is there a good faith argument that there is a legitimate state interest in not allowing gays to marry?

 

The analogy is imperfect but not frivolous.

[Saryctos]

The solution I see is to take the sexual nature of state marriage out of the equation.

 

Make it something of a contract between people living together. Generally this will be married people, but it offers the oppertunity for all people who live with shared income to have the same beneffits.

[padren]

I happen to share the view that banning gay marriage is a bad thing' date=' but I think the posters in this thread are completely off the deep end in declaring anyone who takes the opposite view to be a bigot, and then defending that as a valid form of debate. I'm sorry guys, that's just how I see it.

 

Mokele that post was.... disappointing. I think you know that insulting people is not how you change minds.

 

I'm just going to stop here, because I have a lot of respect for you guys but I'm just not going to see eye to eye with you on this.[/quote']

 

 

I think you are being unfair here. We are not "declaring anyone who takes the opposite view to be a bigot" but saying the arguments hitting the senate floor for the constitutional amendment are based in bigotry, because thats how those arguments plainly appear to be.

 

 

It seems that you are reacting partly to that thing that liberals tend to do, where "Classify group [x] as victims, therefore, anyone who opposes giving group [x] anything they want is therefore victimizers." allows some liberals to go way off the deepend and do crazy stuff in the name of being politically correct over rational.

 

In the same way, there is the potential to say gays have been victimized by bigots, therefore, if they demand a federal lollipop program, and you oppose it, you get automatically labeled a bigot before setting foot in the debate.

 

In as of much as that exists, I do agree with you that it is a dangerous thing to allow. I am under the impression that in this case, people have thrown the bigot term around in response to specific statements, not as a catch all.

[Pangloss]

I think you are being unfair here. We are not "declaring anyone who takes the opposite view to be a bigot" but saying the arguments hitting the senate floor for the constitutional amendment are based in bigotry' date=' because thats how those arguments plainly appear to be.

[/quote']

 

You may not, but your use of the word "we" is clearly in error. Some of the more eggregious examples from this thread include:

Except for the fact that it's *not* legitimate political debate, and it *is* bigotry. Civil debate is one thing, but let's call a spade a spade.

I do think bigotry underlies this whole debate

You actually think there's a legitimate political debate?

[bascule]

This seems to be in stark contrast from your earlier post.

 

Actually, I think I answered my own question...

 

Are they assholes, or are they being "apt"?

 

Ted Kennedy is being apt, albeit a bit of a dick per usual.

 

Orrin Hatch seems to be suffering from "I'm not emo, I just spend all day listening to Dashboard Confessional and Jimmy Eat World with my hair over my face decked out in clothes I bought from Hot Topic as I wallow in misery and ponder cutting myself. And I like to cry a lot, but I'm not emo." syndrome