Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

@Diest TKO,

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Boomer (I think?) once posted a very long and depressing list of the inequalities between married straight people and gay people in civil unions. It's not just six of one, half a dozen of the other. There are very real differences and there just aren't compelling reasons to prevent gay adults from marrying each other.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Maybe interesting side note -- I found this via "popular topics" and with no date attached, briefly wondered if this was an old one that was started when Obama won the Iowa primary, and had recently been revived. I hope Iowa turns out to be a bellwether on this, too.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
There are two primary motives behind the movement to legalize Gay marriage:

1) The imposition of a sea change in societal values
2) The perceived defeat of conservative values

Why the paranoia? Why can't the reason simply be to grant equality? I understand why you might think this, but I can care less about providing some defeat to conservative values. If this is what you believe to the main motives, it suggests a large insecurity on your behalf.

T
K
O

Absolutely. See, seeing Gays as equal and treating them that way is a 'sea change' to them. Because they don't seem them as their equals, but instead, their inferiors.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

...but I can care less about providing some defeat to conservative values.

I think you mean that you couldn't care less...

In any case my post did not assert that there are two primary motives behind Diest's support of the legalization of Gay marriage, and so there is very little relevance to what you could or could not care.

Quote:

Why can't the reason simply be to grant equality?

Cut through the political fog young Jedi...

Legal equality can be achieved through legislative efforts around the rights afforded to Civil Unions.

I know you have a tendency to skim based on bias, but I clearly expressed my support for such efforts.

"Marriage" is a social institution.

Yes, legal rights, and restraints have been attached to it, but such elements can, easily, be replicated in the context of Civil Unions.

Is your concern about "legal" equality or something else?

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, basically, you have the court "passing" laws because you can't get the voters or their elected representatives to agree to them. Your respect for democracy is overwhelming.

The court didn't 'pass' any law. It found a law which was passed by the Legislature to be Unconstitutional due to the Equal Protection clause. There's nothing new or particularly shocking about this.

Do you accept that the Judicial branch is an equal branch to the other two, or not? Yes, you do? Then what are you complaining about? One would think that if you respected Democracy, you would respect the Judicial branch's ability to excercize their power just like the other branches.

Cycloptichorn

You assert that the court didn't take it upon itself to introduce a new law. Very well, find me either:

1. anything in the Iowa Constitution which indicates that there is a right to same sex marriage

or

2. anything in the statute banning gay marriage which grants a right to one group which it denies to another.

The equal protection clause cannot be interpreted as meaning:

"person A gets to do what he wishes, therefore, person B should get to do what he wishes."

That's not what equal protection means. It means that a law cannot define a privilege which it explicitly grants to some and forbids to others. Iowa law, as it stood before this decision, merely defined marriage as the union between individuals of opposite gender. Every citizen had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and no citizen had the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not unequal. The court used some legalistic mumbo jumbo to torture the interpretation they wanted from the state Constitution. They did an end run around the voters, because the majority of the electorate disagrees with you.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Are we here to discuss different flavors of "equality" Finn?

Legal equality versus what other equality exactly? In matters of governance, legal equality is what we are talking about. The government and how it's authority is used.

If we are talking about some notion of social equality, it's not a matter of law, only individuals. I can't make some piece of **** bigot not call a gay 14 year old a "faggot" in the hall of his school just to harass him. I can't even make that gay youth's struggles better. All I can hope for is that the inequity of cruel people is not reflected in our laws. Laws that specifically target the gay community create a second class citizenship.

You are willing to tell the supporters of equal rights what their motive is, but when confronted, I don't count in that group?

Marriage WAS a social institution. It is very much a legal one now. If it was not, this would not be an issue. If civil unions actually offered the same rights, then this would also be less of an issue.

However, in the end, you still have to make a clear argument for why we must have parallel institutions. I mean if marriage is a social contract, then why then can't a church marry two men or two women together? If that church (or whatever for that matter) condones it, then who are you to stand in the way?

What is wrong with the LGBT community having the right to marry? What is so threatening?

I'm not hiding anything Finn. I support gays in their pursuit for equal rights unapologetically. Stop trying to read between the lines. I'm being clear and direct with you.

It's easy to emulate your rhetorical attack: I mean what is it that you REALLY want? The irradiation of all homosexuals from the earth?

You see, I don't think you do. I can however craft an argument that says that's what you're doing. Just like you craft an argument that the support for gays to get married is about anything other than that.

The sky isn't falling.
K
O

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Get educated on the ruling then come back. Don't waste people's time until then Brandon.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Oh how good it feels to include each and every disparate point of view.

That is the definition of modern Liberalism: There are no standards; it's all cool if it feels cool.

All of the "depressing" inequalities between married straights and gay people "in civil unions," can be rectified by addressing the elements of civil unions. Why do you suppose that the only answer to this supposed inequality is to leap to the legalization of gay "marriages?"

The answer is very simple.

You care less about the specific inequalities, than you do about some grandious social change: Gays are Normal.

Having said this, I, frankly, doubt you appreciate the real argument around this issue, and have no doubt that your are motivated by a a legitimate, but misplaced desire for broad euity.

5 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

... and have no doubt that your are motivated by a a legitimate, but misplaced desire for broad euity.

I think you meant 'you' and one 'a' and WTF is 'euity'?

You're such a hairball of nonsense that you really should stop handing out advice on language, well, maybe even any advice, Finn.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Every citizen had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and no citizen had the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not unequal.

Wrongo. This is entirely equivalent to saying,

Quote:

Every citizen had the right to marry someone of their own race, and nobody has the right to marry someone of a different race. That is not unequal.

We have already made a decision as a society to get past bigoted thinking such as this. Get with the program.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You care less about the specific inequalities, than you do about some grandious social change: Gays are Normal.

Gays are Normal. Don't be such a ******* bigot, Finn.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Oh how good it feels to include each and every disparate point of view.

Finn, you're the one getting desperate here. You made an assertion about the supporters of gay rights. I refuted. You removed me from your assertion. Soz, and Cyclo refute agree with me. You're 0 for 3.

I'm sure you think you know us better than we do though. How's that been working out for you? Confused

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That is the definition of modern Liberalism: There are no standards; it's all cool if it feels cool.

That is the definition of modern Conservatism: There are no standards; it's all cool if it benefits me.

Leave your meaningless assertions in Foxfyre's useless thread. I'm sure she'll appreciate the company.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

All of the "depressing" inequalities between married straights and gay people "in civil unions," can be rectified by addressing the elements of civil unions. Why do you suppose that the only answer to this supposed inequality is to leap to the legalization of gay "marriages?"

This response shows how poorly educated you are on the history of this topic. Much effort has gone into getting same sex couples the right to civil unions. Not all of the effort is concentrated in just the pursuit of marriages. Get educated on the topic.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The answer is very simple.

You care less about the specific inequalities, than you do about some grandious social change: Gays are Normal.

What brand of idiocy is this?

"Specific inequities?"

I don't speak for soz, but I think the idea here is not to have gays be "mostly equal." That's not equal.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Having said this, I, frankly, doubt you appreciate the real argument around this issue, and have no doubt that your are motivated by a a legitimate, but misplaced desire for broad euity.

What is the real argument Finn? Since you know what it is apparently.

What's wrong with gays marrying?
What's threatened by it?

That has been the issue. Asked and answered.

There was no pragmatic need to stop gays from marrying, so it has become framed now as a faceless "will of the people" argumentum ad populum with no logical base.

Iowa becomes the 3rd (technically the 4th) state to allow gays to marry. And once again, it destroys your argument to find out like everyone else, that guess what? Everything is fine.

The sky is not falling.
K
O

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

If the laws governing civil unions do not adequately provide these rights and protections it should be a much easier and less controversial effort to correct this as opposed to challenging the centuries old definition of "marriage."

Yeah, challenging those centuries old definitions is hardly the mark of a thinking person. Look what all that has achieved; allowed women rights they never should have had and put all sorts of lower class racial groups into mainstream society.

I'm with Finn. Let's put all those bitches, niggers, chinks, etc. back where they belong. Enough of you bastard liberals taking a wrecking ball to our glorious society.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I don't know what you are here to discuss Diest, but you are advocating more than one "flavor" of equality, and you are quite emotional in your advocation.

When you advocate legal equality, I am with you, but if and when you advocate an equality of perception, you go far astray of what I am prepared to endorse.

It's quite easy to get all stirred up, emotionally, about the plight of a 14 year old homosexual being called a "faggot," but you cannot address such a concern from a legal standpoint unless you are prepared to make it illegal to call someone a "faggot."

You insist that the issue is based on the fact that the civil unions do not offer the same legal rights as marriage. Perhaps that is true, but if it is, the answer is to enhance the rights afforded by civil unions, not to bypass the concept and argue for "marriage."

Marriage is a social institution. Your argument that we should consider the fact only in the past tense is ridiculous.

If the Church of Benevolent Queers or Episcopalians want to recognize gay relationships as marriages, I couldn't care less. Should Gay A want to call Gay B his wife or husband, again, I couldn't care less.

However, it is perfectly clear to all, but the willingly blind, that Society resists the consideration of Gay unions as "mariages." If Gay couples can achieve legal equity through laws addressing civil unions, then further hubub about the right to be "married" can only be motivated by a desire that is outside of the concern for legal equity.

Quote:

What is wrong with the LGBT community having the right to marry?

Who knows, and who cares?

The point is that the majority of the members of our society do not wish to grant Gay couples the status of "marriage."

If they argued that Gay couples are not deserving of the legal rights afforded married heterosexuals in America, then you would have a legitimate beef and one I would share with you, but if the majority of Americans don't want to accept Gay partnerships as "marriages", who are you to insist that they do?

Once the question of legal rights is addressed the rest of the argument becomes one of forcing social acceptance.

Sorry TKO, but you can't make society accept homosexuality as "normal," through legislation or judicial fiat.

Notwithstanding your take on things, it is entirely reasonable for people to assume that an institution that has been accepted as a fundamentally positive societal force for, literally, millenium should not be monkeyed with. I know this is essentially "conservative," but I don't share your abhorence for all things that might be considered conservative.

Tell me, specifically young Jedi, why it should be legally mandated that American society draws no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual "marriage."

Any response that smacks of "Because we're all God's children," is automatically specious.

The world will not end if Gays get to "marry," but neither will it end if abortion is rendered illegal or anti-war activists are considered traitors. Utter destruction of all life on earth is not required as a predicate for an argument that is contrary to your personal belief or the beliefs of a certain segment (LIBERALS) of the populace.

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You care less about the specific inequalities, than you do about some grandious social change: Gays are Normal.

What is wrong with grandious social change? Woman can vote.

Personally, I care about both specific inequalities AND grandious social change.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

What is wrong with grandious social change?

Obviously, you are not a conservative.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

That's the kindest thing you have ever said to me. Now it's time for bed.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Sleep fitfully.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Every citizen had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and no citizen had the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is not unequal.

Wrongo. This is entirely equivalent to saying,

Quote:
Every citizen had the right to marry someone of their own race, and nobody has the right to marry someone of a different race. That is not unequal.

We have already made a decision as a society to get past bigoted thinking such as this. Get with the program.

Cycloptichorn

Such a law regarding race, would be very wrong and immoral to my way of thinking, but would not be a violation of a law which provided for equal protection of citizens, since it would not grant any privilege to one group but deny it to another group.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I don't know what you are here to discuss Diest, but you are advocating more than one "flavor" of equality, and you are quite emotional in your advocation.

Not more than one pie Finn, the whole pie. If you don't think that gays are equal human beings why do you think they deserve equal legal rights?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

When you advocate legal equality, I am with you, but if and when you advocate an equality of perception, you go far astray of what I am prepared to endorse.

My argument is tailored for people who value equality. I never said it was for you. I don't need to waste time trying to convince you to adopt that value.

If after the LGBT community has equal legal rights, you want to get off the bus, go for it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

It's quite easy to get all stirred up, emotionally, about the plight of a 14 year old homosexual being called a "faggot," but you cannot address such a concern from a legal standpoint unless you are prepared to make it illegal to call someone a "faggot."

I'm not saying that it should be illegal to call some kid a "faggot." The issue here is that any harassment such as this is based on the idea that gays are inferior. Having laws that reenforce this is fuels this kind of situation. Will gays continue to be harassed even if they have marriage rights? Yeah, no doubt they will.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You insist that the issue is based on the fact that the civil unions do not offer the same legal rights as marriage. Perhaps that is true, but if it is, the answer is to enhance the rights afforded by civil unions, not to bypass the concept and argue for "marriage."

If it's true? Get educated. It is true. I do advocate for the enhancement of civil unions. It is not a bypass to argue for marriage if marriage offers equal rights. It could go either way, but again, I've yet to hear why we need to establish a parallel institution. I asked you directly did I not?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Marriage is a social institution. Your argument that we should consider the fact only in the past tense is ridiculous.

Get with the facts. It is a legal institution now. The rights of marriage are governed by law. Social recognition of marriage doesn't grant those privileges associated with marriage, the state does that.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If the Church of Benevolent Queers or Episcopalians want to recognize gay relationships as marriages, I couldn't care less. Should Gay A want to call Gay B his wife or husband, again, I couldn't care less.

Then let the state recognize the relationship, and lets be done with it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

However, it is perfectly clear to all, but the willingly blind, that Society resists the consideration of Gay unions as "mariages." If Gay couples can achieve legal equity through laws addressing civil unions, then further hubub about the right to be "married" can only be motivated by a desire that is outside of the concern for legal equity.

No Finn. This is about legal equality.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
What is wrong with the LGBT community having the right to marry?

Who knows, and who cares?

The point is that the majority of the members of our society do not wish to grant Gay couples the status of "marriage."

Nor did the majority of society want interracial marriage. Our laws however cannot solely based on populism. They must also be just and logical.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

If they argued that Gay couples are not deserving of the legal rights afforded married heterosexuals in America, then you would have a legitimate beef and one I would share with you, but if the majority of Americans don't want to accept Gay partnerships as "marriages", who are you to insist that they do?

Who cares if they accept it? It's not theirs to care about. Lots of people do things that others consider unacceptable. I don't insist that they recognize the marriage, but I do think the state has to. People can have whatever opinion they like after that.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Once the question of legal rights is addressed the rest of the argument becomes one of forcing social acceptance.

Nobody is being forced to accept anything. They aren't being asked to do anything. Nobody forced the nation to accept interracial marriage either. Plenty of people said we weren't ready too.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Sorry TKO, but you can't make society accept homosexuality as "normal," through legislation or judicial fiat.

That's not my objective. I advocate for equality. Legal equality by our government, and the rest I acknowledge as a long struggle thereafter.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Notwithstanding your take on things, it is entirely reasonable for people to assume that an institution that has been accepted as a fundamentally positive societal force for, literally, millennium should not be monkeyed with. I know this is essentially "conservative," but I don't share your abhorence for all things that might be considered conservative.

The institution of marriage has not been carved of stone in the last millennium. Get educated.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Tell me, specifically young Jedi, why it should be legally mandated that American society draws no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual "marriage."

Red Herring. American society can make whatever distinction it pleases, as long as the law grants equality.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Any response that smacks of "Because we're all God's children," is automatically specious.

I've been posting long enough to establish that THIS is not my kind of response.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The world will not end if Gays get to "marry," but neither will it end if abortion is rendered illegal or anti-war activists are considered traitors. Utter destruction of all life on earth is not required as a predicate for an argument that is contrary to your personal belief or the beliefs of a certain segment (LIBERALS) of the populace.

Your fatal error is that you politicize this with left-right, liberal-conservative contention.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Congratulations Iowa! (only 47 states to go).

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know