[oldnemesis]

(05-14-2012 06:15 PM)naswanji Wrote:  

The problem with the gay marriage debate, and the reason both sides seem to talk past each other, is that marriage exists on two levels: the legal level and the social/anthropological level.

You are making exactly the same arguments which have been already made in the courts by the various opponents of the gay marriage court cases. All those arguments were rejected as either not supported by the evidence, or not carrying the legitimate governmental purpose. It amazes me that none of you guys actually read the court rulings, since you repeat the same already rebuffed arguments.

Quote:

Moreover, all these benefits are available through civil unions. (And contra the "separate but equal" analogy, in many jurisdictions civil unions are available to heterosexuals as well).

The bold quoted portion is a major misunderstanding at best, as this is definitely NOT the case right now in the US. Again, it's a pity you guys do not read the rulings of the U.S. Courts as this point was also addressed.

Quote:

The problem with the tactics currently pursued by gay marriage activists is that they aim to gain access to the social recognition of marriage by way of the legal arguments. It's a bait and switch move. They argue that they should have access to the same rights as everybody else, but when they were offered civil unions as a solution, they rejected that. Why? Because what they really covet is the social cachet that marriage enjoys.

Indeed. Gays want to stop the practice of being treated of second class citizens - same as desegregation was really an aim to change the society to stop treating the blacks as the second class citizens. Note that there was no law which stated "blacks must be treated as second class citizens", same as there is no law which states "homosexual relationships are not as worthy as straight relationships", and therefore a direct attack on this discrimination is not possible. This is why the anti-discrimination efforts have to focus on repealing the discriminating laws and provisions.

Basically your whole post could be summarized in one word: the traditions of the society do not favor gay marriage legalization. However as the multiple U.S. Courts have said, traditions or moral beliefs alone, no matter how deep and convincing, cannot be a ground for legalization. You need to prove with the evidence that the legalization of gay marriage would bring some measurable harm besides just hurting some feelings. And this is something no one was able to prove so far.

Now, will some part of society reject the homosexual marriage even if it is accepted by the government? Sure they would - as I said above, some people still do not accept blacks as equal despite the fifty or so years of desegregation. However the majority would accept it, and this is the ultimate goal.

[oldnemesis]

(05-15-2012 09:32 AM)kosko Wrote:  

This is why in public people "support" gay marriage but in the privacy of their own mind or the voters both they reject it. Why? because of the points you brought up there internal mind/spirit rejects the notion of something artificial attacking a natural societal contract in marriage.

And this is exactly why it is failing in the courts all the way across the country - because your private personal beliefs have absolutely zero weight there.

Anyway I'm leaving you guys for two weeks as my flight to Philippines departs in five hours. Hopefully when I return the 9th Circuit would deny en banc to Prop 8 supporters and we'll get back to read about some important things.

[Goldin Boy]

I'm surprised anyone believes anything that American politician say anymore. The just spew whatever the largest voting blocs wanna hear.

[speakeasy]

(05-15-2012 09:02 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

You are making exactly the same arguments which have been already made in the courts by the various opponents of the gay marriage court cases. All those arguments were rejected as either not supported by the evidence, or not carrying the legitimate governmental purpose. It amazes me that none of you guys actually read the court rulings, since you repeat the same already rebuffed arguments.

So what? Not everybody is going to agree with the courts. The courts are just made up of people, probably no smarter than any of us in here. The courts haven't thrown out the Patriot Act either but that doesn't mean there aren't many millions of Americans that have serious grievances with it. The courts also overturn any law that tries to put an end to illegal immigration which you saw with prop 187 here in California and now they're attempting to do the same in Arizona. Just because a court rules in favor or against something doesn't mean they are right in any absolute sense and that there may not even be a majority of people that disagree with the way they interpret the Constitution. Get a different set of justices on the court and they may interpret the Constitution quite differently.

Quote:

Indeed. Gays want to stop the practice of being treated of second class citizens - same as desegregation was really an aim to change the society to stop treating the blacks as the second class citizens. Note that there was no law which stated "blacks must be treated as second class citizens", same as there is no law which states "homosexual relationships are not as worthy as straight relationships", and therefore a direct attack on this discrimination is not possible. This is why the anti-discrimination efforts have to focus on repealing the discriminating laws and provisions.

Gays are NOT treated as second class citizens as there is absolutely nothing in the law that punishes homosexuals or denies them anything. Whatever laws apply to gays apply to straights equally. The law doesn't recognize gay in the way it recognized black and came up with elaborate ways to define who is black(such as the one drop rule). The law doesn't even define who or what a gay is or what you'd have to do to even be considered one. There are men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women who don't even consider themselves gay. Two straight men may want to marry for immigration reasons. They are banned as well. Gays are not treated as second class citizens. That's bull. Why can't they just get a civil union and have the same rights as straights, and then just go have a private "marriage" ceremony with their friends, family and a gay friendly church? Why the fuck can't they just leave it at that and stop trying to force the wider society to change their cultural idea and redefine what constitutes a marriage??

Quote:

Basically your whole post could be summarized in one word: the traditions of the society do not favor gay marriage legalization. However as the multiple U.S. Courts have said, traditions or moral beliefs alone, no matter how deep and convincing, cannot be a ground for legalization. You need to prove with the evidence that the legalization of gay marriage would bring some measurable harm besides just hurting some feelings. And this is something no one was able to prove so far.

Well as I said before, then the courts should allow Utah to bring back polygamy because by the same definition above it would pass.

[naswanji]

oldnemesis, I think we're having two separate debates. While the rest of us on this thread are debating whether we're for or against gay marriage and why, you're arguing that the US Constitution grants a right to gay marriage, and are asking us to refute that contention. But that's an appeal to authority, and it's shifting the grounds of the debate. It's similar to what guns rights activists do when they appeal to the 2nd Amendment to justify their opposition to gun control. Rather than offer arguments to justify why they think they should have a right to bear arms, or why gun control is bad, they just say that the Constitution grants them that right, end of story. You can observe the same phenomenon in a number of debate in the US: abortion, health care, etc. Everyone wraps themselves up in the Constitution and claims that it upholds their own point of view. But the US is not the only place where this issue is being hashed out, and there are other countries where gay marriage is making strides that don't have the same legal framework and constitutional protections that the US does. So would you be for or against gay marriage in those countries that lack an Equal Protection Clause?

You should also note that the case law on gay marriage in the US is rather divided, so citing a few rulings that have upheld a right to gay marriage doesn't necessarily prove anything. Courts have upheld gay marriage bans in Indiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Washington state and Maryland, for example. Since you're such a fan of court rulings, here are a few that have found there to be a legitimate government interest in banning gay marriage:

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/conten...341opn.pdf

http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2007/44a06.pdf

http://www.domawatch.org/cases/indiana/m...Appeal.pdf

However, the real danger in the legalistic approach to gay marriage is that it is leading to a breakdown of societal consensus as to what constitutes a marriage. As I mentioned before, the social recognition that marriage provides arises organically from the community, and it is not the government's to give by fiat. The legitimacy of marriage is dependent on the fact that more or less everyone recognizes the marriages of others as legitimate without question. Now, however, we're moving to a situation where we will have a category of marriages that 50% of the population simply does not recognize as legitimate, that they scoff at or put between quotation marks. Gays won't have marriage, they'll have "marriage." Although this is not the kind of harm that is readily quantifiable, it does seem to me to cause definitive harm to the institution of marriage for it to be fractured into different enclaves, "marriage as understood by the coastal elites," "marriage as understood by middle America," etc.

[speakeasy]

This just in folks if you want to see where all this gay activism shit is leading us. The gay thought police are now going after Manny Pacquiao because he doesn't believe in same sex marriage:

http://laist.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacqui...iage_r.php

For those that are locals or have been to L.A. you probably know about a mega shopping complex called The Grove near Hollywood. Well they are wanting him banned from the shopping center because he doesn't support same sex marriage. What a bunch of bullshit. Don't these assholes realize that this is the kind of stuff that will cause an anti-gay backlash? Normal people who ordinarily might not even give a shit about gays one way or another are going to start to get pissed about things like this.

I have nothing against gay people, but I fucking hate their spokespeople and advocates.

[Hooligan Harry]

Problem is, even if they are pissed off, many are afraid to speak up. You cant speak up because the left is a very vocal minority that throws mud at the first opportunity. Once the accusations of hate speech come, it can cost you your job or even really do some personal damage.

Look at what you just went through when you spoke up. You were perfectly rational, and within a day you had to deal with all manner of character attacks and fake, incredulous disbelief that you could still be so backward. They have hijacked debate completely and I fear that until such time as people either start cracking heads or it becomes socially unacceptable to deny people their right to free speech, this shit will continue.

[WanderingSoul]

(05-16-2012 12:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

This just in folks if you want to see where all this gay activism shit is leading us. The gay thought police are now going after Manny Pacquiao because he doesn't believe in same sex marriage:

http://laist.com/2012/05/16/manny_pacqui...iage_r.php

For those that are locals or have been to L.A. you probably know about a mega shopping complex called The Grove near Hollywood. Well they are wanting him banned from the shopping center because he doesn't support same sex marriage. What a bunch of bullshit. Don't these assholes realize that this is the kind of stuff that will cause an anti-gay backlash? Normal people who ordinarily might not even give a shit about gays one way or another are going to start to get pissed about things like this.

I have nothing against gay people, but I fucking hate their spokespeople and advocates.

I am for same sex marriage, but banning Manny from the mall is ridiculous. He has his beliefs just as anyone does, you should not ban him for that.

I pretty much can't stand spokespeople and rights groups for any cause. They come out with ludicrous demands and make themselves, and their cause, look fucking retarded. Generally over very menial bullshit also.

I wonder if a lot of this Manny debacle has to do with the paragraph below from the article, and people thinking Manny said it? At first read I thought Manny said that, and I could understand how people would be super fucking pissed. However, after rereading it, he didn't say that. It is a quote from the Bible, as far as I can tell.

Pacquiao's directive for Obama calls societies to fear God and not to promote sin, inclusive of same-sex marriage and cohabitation, notwithstanding what Leviticus 20:13 has been pointing all along: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

[Keyser Söze]

(05-11-2012 08:54 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Keyser Soze has been suspended for 7 days due to attacking a senior member with name calling.

Roosh, for the sake of integrity, could you please identify the specific instances in which I engaged in name calling?

If you can't find any, and were just white knighting for one of your friends, fine, it is your site and you may do whatever you want.

Also, here are a couple of instances in which I was personally and specifically attacked and insulted in this thread in clear violation of forum rules, why was nothing done? You will note that I did not take the bait and reply in kind.

post #25: "Keyser Soze, you're a total moron"

post #27: "Is Keysor a woman? Because he comes across as rather hysterical"


Also, what does feminism and that have to do with this? I don't worry about things that don't affect my life and happiness.

Now, for me personally what would gay marriage actually change?
I have a couple of friends who are gay. Maybe I would travel to one of the weddings and bang one of their hot sisters. Other than that, I can't see any way I would personally be affected.

[thekid]

Kinda late to the game...but, if I was grand-master-emperor of these United States, here's what I would do:

1. Take marriage out of the governments hands: no one gets a government document saying you are "married"

Marriage is an inherently religious designation. The government, due to the separation between church and state, should not differentiate.

Therefore, civil unions will be what you get when two people, man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, are locked into a financial and domestic binding, and would come with all the benefits one receives when married today.

2. Churches can do whatever the fuck they want.

If you want to get "married" find a church that will marry you. No church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want, but many churches are happy to wed gay couples.

Marriage is a religious institution, and it is bullshit that the government dirties its hands with it.

That said, with marriage being government construct, a legal argument against gay marriage should not hold water in court. The economic effects have been thoroughly debunked, and any "sanctity" argument, has no place in government, where ones definition of "sanctity" is better left in confessional.