I don't think PA's Gabe is a Transphobic Bigot.

I think rational discussion can be had on almost any topic. It's too bad so many people do not agree... Even if there's a big argument that trumps all (e.g. 'equal rights') discussing from other points of view can reinforce, undermine or, most times, nuance our own views on a topic, allowing us to come to better conclusions.

I do think that equal rights trump other considerations regarding same sex marriage, but I also agree with Bowie's last point, which is how I would have answered to Stienman's question about promoting same sex couples, although perhaps with a different tone.
 
I already see the semantics shell game that's going on, and I'm just not going to play. I'm also not putting anyone on ignore, because I realize that's childish.

I'd like to remind people, however, that we are dealing with issues that are very close to home for some people here and aren't just theoretical issues to some of us.
 
I'm sorry if my post was out of place in content or form or tone. I trealize it is perfectly reasonable to not want to discuss or even read a cold discussion about something that generates a strong emotional response, hits close to home, etc. Also, my first paragraph was NOT directed at you, Bowie. In any case, I apologize.

Also, sorry for coming to a discussion that was already muddied with something that may be read as dismissive of previous posts.
 
Well, it's obvious I will not in any way be able to have a calm rational discussion about people equating me to pedophiles or practitioners of beastiality or about how me being granted civil rights is a bad thing, so I'll just leave it to other people.[DOUBLEPOST=1372759923][/DOUBLEPOST]Parting shot, though.

Reminder, In the bible, marriage wasn't between a man and a woman.

It was between a man and his multiple women.

Things change.
 
Reminder, In the bible, marriage wasn't between a man and a woman.

It was between a man and his multiple women.
Whoah, there's a lake in China that would make polygamists heads explode.

(A marriageless society where the women control everything and nobody knows who their father is.)
 
I agree with Bowie--considering the resource-draining explosion of the human population, jumping by a billion in not many years, we could really use a lot more gay people.
 
So why not argue that instead of just shut Stieny out?
Yes, stienman opposes gay marriage on religious reasons. Last I checked, that was one of the freedoms you guys liked about your country so much.
He's also trying to have a rational debate about it. He believes God's One Message is more important than the rights of homosexuals (or not - I've heard Stienman state he's opposed to gay marriage, but not that he thinks it should be made illegal - I can be against allowing alcohol but that doesn't mean I must be in favour of prohibition). Most others here would say equal rights trump any other concerns about the matter. I agree with that second group, for that matter.

However, Stienman seems to want to put those concerns aside to have an open discussion about other reasons/benefits/etc about gay marriage. Purely economicall-logically, what are the benefits of gay marriage as recognised by law for a society? Mind you, you can have all the Vegas wedding chapel marriages in the world and they don't change anything (except getting some people's moral undies in a wad). A legal marriage has specific benefits and reasons. The state supports marriage as a means of stabilizing society, allowing children safe environments to grow up in, and so on. Other benefits of marriage are, for example, trying to keep people from ditching their SO when they get ill or grow old. It's also a way of supporting procreation.
I think a rational argument can be made that most of these benefits still apply when you look at gay marriage - and in fact, most of those reasons are stronger as counterarguments to legalizing divorce.

As Tegid said, I thinkthese days "suppressing procreation" may be in society's best interest more than supporting it - for more on this, go read Endless War, SF where due to overpopulation it's straight sex that ends up being looked at as a weird fetish, with all babies bottle-grown. It could happen, given a couple of hundred years.

As for the slippery slope, as stated by someone further up, it's not enough to call it out - you have to prove there's a stopping point somewhere on the slope. Consent is what most people seem to accept as the logical stopping point these days (and I personally agree), however, this most certainly wasn't always the case. It also opens a bit of a can of worms. Defining when one can consent isn't a simple matter. A 14 y/o and an 18 y/o having sex is legal in one country, illegal and rape in the next. Crossing a border does not suddenly make someone smarter or more responsible. Date rape is another example where the lines can get pretty blurred - one can't be expected to carry a breathalyzer to every party, so excluding both ends of the scale (stone cold sober and utterly wasted and incapable of standing up), how do you determine whether or not the other can still properly consent? Some animals, as has been pointed out, can try to engage in sexual activities with humans. Obviously this is about biological wires getting crossed (that dog does not really think your leg's a good partner), but good luck figuring that out. Some biologists can and do equate that to other instances of sexuality we have come to accept as normal, since our own sexual drives are "intended" to lead to procreation (note that I personally think the whole sex-for-procreation argument is complete BS, I'm just acknowledging its existence - I hope to still be having fun with my girlfriend when she's 75 and I'm pretty sure we won't be at risk of pregnancy by that time)

As for the original point - I actually have heard people complain about "Ladies and Gentlemen", as they felt they belonged to neither. I really do think there's a huge difference between being a bigot about something, being simply uninformed about it, or following societal customs which are at the moment perhaps not inclusive enough.

Closing addendum: despite it being bandied around on the internet a lot, bestiality is not legal in Belgium. There's no specific law about "having sex with animals", it's taken as part of the animal cruelty law and rape law, since animals can't consent.
 
Well, it's obvious I will not in any way be able to have a calm rational discussion about people equating me to pedophiles or practitioners of beastiality or about how me being granted civil rights is a bad thing, so I'll just leave it to other people.
I am sorry. I will reread my posts later today and delete or modify them. I should not attack you, make you feel unwelcome or unloved by me or anyone else here for any reason.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
The best argument I've heard in favor of gay marriage was one I heard from my sociology professor last semester: People should be able to declare themselves family to whomever they want. Right now the only ways to have all the rights of being made family are marriage and adoption, and that leaves out a lot of people from being able to get all the rights and benefits of being family. The counter to this right now is "being gay is a sin", which is a pretty stupid counter argument, even though I believe it to be a true statement. It's not my business to tell people they're sinning (unless they're in my church and we have an established relationship, in which case they know I'm supposed to do that according to our faith).

The only real counter argument I can think of is "there are too many benefits to marriage/family to just let anyone have it". Which is true, our society has just thrown bonuses at married people with abandon, because we've idolized marriage. However, the answer is not to deny people the ability to say "this person is now my family" but to tack on "and I will take care of them and see to all the responsibilities that come with being family". If people want insurance coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc. and society can't provide that, then tack on some requirements that will balance it out. Heterosexual couples don't need the blanket bonuses they currently get over singles and other people in relationships.
 
I support gay marriage in that I fully believe everyone should have the opportunity to have a boat anchor tied around their neck
 

fade

Staff member
What's the metric for "benefit to society"? Reproduction? Why? Why does that win over other benign effects on society?
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Bear in mind with all the below arguments, I am in favor of the legalization of gay marriage.

Everybody said:
Equal rights equal rights whaaaargarbl
I just want to point out that, semantically, they always had equal rights. Gay people had the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people. Straight people also were not allowed to same-sex marry. Marriage law has nothing to do with love, technically. So the "equal rights" bit is incorrect.

For the record, with the resources of the planet being strained as much as they are, homosexuals are doing more for humanity than people who are pumping out multiple drains on the world resources.
Actually, this is inaccurate. The countries with the most open acceptance of homosexuality are also those that tend toward the lowest birth rates on the planet. Until homosexual acceptance/numbers has made huge strides in China, India and Africa, saying homosexuality is helping to curb overpopulation is like saying a shot glass helps bail out a sinking boat.
 
I just want to point out that, semantically, they always had equal rights. Gay people had the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people. Straight people also were not allowed to same-sex marry. Marriage law has nothing to do with love, technically. So the "equal rights" bit is incorrect.

As always, every time this is brought up, it makes us all dumber people for having read it. Every time.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
All I'm trying to say is that there's plenty of really good reasons to support gay marriage, and thus we don't need to rely on flawed or inaccurate arguments in its favor.

It should be enough for anyone that homosexuality is not an aberration but just another way human beings "are," and the purpose of marriage is to create stability and economic benefit to family units which in turn strengthens society as a whole, and the gender configuration of that family is irrelevant to the beneficial effects everyone receives as a result of the strengthening of familial support systems in that society.
 
It should be enough for anyone that homosexuality is not an aberration but just another way human beings "are," and the purpose of marriage is to create stability and economic benefit to family units which in turn strengthens society as a whole, and the gender configuration of that family is irrelevant to the beneficial effects everyone receives as a result of the strengthening of familial support systems in that society.

And who decided marriage is only between *two* people? A polygamous marriage could/would give all the same benefits of a gay (or heterosexual) two-polar marriage. It's also all consenting adults, etc.
 
I just want to point out that, semantically, they always had equal rights. Gay people had the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexual people. Straight people also were not allowed to same-sex marry. Marriage law has nothing to do with love, technically. So the "equal rights" bit is incorrect.
Yeah but it's denying rights on gender. A man isn't allowed to marry a man but a woman is.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Yeah but it's denying rights on gender. A man isn't allowed to marry a man but a woman is.
She was allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, same as a man. It's an unsatisfying, technicality-dependent sort of equality but it is equality, which is why a different argument needs to be made. The fact of the matter is we are "redefining" marriage (from both a legal and cultural/societal standpoint) but that shouldn't be a sticking point because, as Bowielee and others point out we have repeatedly redefined marriage over the course of human history and even today some societies don't define it the same way US law does. It isn't rational to insist that the national, legal definition of marriage has to conform to the contemporary judeo-christian one.
 

fade

Staff member
Seems to me like this pedantic issue is usually bypassed, because they (media, protesters, politicians) usually refer explicitly to couple's right, not the individual's.
 
they (media, protesters, politicians) usually refer explicitly to couple's right, not the individual's.
This might sound a little far-fetched, but it seems obvious to me there's no inherent reason that access to "couples" and "families" rights should hinge on needing to be "married," if this is ultimately a question about the rights and privileges granted thereto. If that is truly the real issue, then the people who are so dead-set against Teh Gays polluting the sanctity of "Marriage" should've probably worked harder to draft some sort of it's-like-they're-married-but-not-really-please-don't-use-that-word legislation and get it passed, and then said legislation can go down in flames sixty years later, and the progression will be complete.

--Patrick
 

GasBandit

Staff member
This might sound a little far-fetched, but it seems obvious to me there's no inherent reason that access to "couples" and "families" rights should hinge on needing to be "married," if this is ultimately a question about the rights and privileges granted thereto. If that is truly the real issue, then the people who are so dead-set against Teh Gays polluting the sanctity of "Marriage" should've probably worked harder to draft some sort of it's-like-they're-married-but-not-really-please-don't-use-that-word legislation and get it passed, and then said legislation can go down in flames sixty years later, and the progression will be complete.

--Patrick
The problem is there's too much desire for socio-political vengeance among the "wronged" in this case. They kinda-sorta started going down that path with "civil unions" but it got poo-pooh'd practically just as it got started because the militants put their foot down and said "NO, we're gonna be (irony alert) by-god MARRIED and there's nothing you can do to stop us!"
 
The problem is there's too much desire for socio-political vengeance among the "wronged" in this case. They kinda-sorta started going down that path with "civil unions" but it got poo-pooh'd practically just as it got started because the militants put their foot down and said "NO, we're gonna be (irony alert) by-god MARRIED and there's nothing you can do to stop us!"
I always suggested that all marriage be banned as a legal status, and that all unions be civil unions. If people want 'marriage' as a religious bonding or what have you, fine, churches can still do them, but they have no legal grounding without also obtaining a civil union.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I always suggested that all marriage be banned as a legal status, and that all unions be civil unions. If people want 'marriage' as a religious bonding or what have you, fine, churches can still do them, but they have no legal grounding without also obtaining a civil union.
I would absolutely get behind that.

It'll never happen. The turbochristians would riot.
 

fade

Staff member
Again, I think that's the whole point. It's the difference more than the actual term chosen. It seems minor to someone not in the in-group. Just like being taxed without representation seems pretty whiny and uppity to someone not experiencing it.
 
Hey, I was in a lab meeting yesterday and the thought came to my mind: The boss from the lab we work with (I'm a theorist) is a woman married to another woman. Aaaand... they have had two children together. Apparently, even if we accept more children=good, the argument about encouraging couples that won't have children doesn't seem to work.
 
Hey, I was in a lab meeting yesterday and the thought came to my mind: The boss from the lab we work with (I'm a theorist) is a woman married to another woman. Aaaand... they have had two children together. Apparently, even if we accept more children=good, the argument about encouraging couples that won't have children doesn't seem to work.
Yes, but -clearly- those children are growing up in a broken home, just like any child that's raised by a single parent, or grandparents, or any variation that isn't a one man one woman configuration.
 
Top