@Diest TKO,
Quote:Change for the sake of change? That's saying that people advocating for equal rights are simply bored with the way things are and want to mix things up. This is NOT change for the sake of change. This is overdue change to follow through on the promised creed of America for all of it's citizens.
You need to reread the statement you quoted.
Quote:There is yet another goal which is of lesser importance to gays and their straight supporters, but is, nevertheless, critical to a certain segment of this interest group that is actually part of the broader movement of Progressivism: Change for the sake of change; the breaking down of long established societal standards in part simply because of their long standing.
I am not characterizing the overall support for same-sex marriages as seeking change for the sake of change. I am contending that there is a segment of the supporters who believe, fundamentally, that standing still is detrimental to society and that tradition is essentially fueled by ignorance.
Quote:There are any number of wedddings you may disapprove of in your lifetime. You disapprove of two people you don't know marrying. You believe you should be able to stop them from marrying?
You wrote this in response to my comment that there are people who believe that the traditional definition of marriage has served society very well for thousands of years and should not be tampered with; and that many of these people support the concept of civil unions that provide all of the legal rights of marriage.
Obviously there are people who disapprove of sex between members of the same gender, and who disapprove of their being engaged in relationships based on romantic love, however, it does not follow that all people who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage disapprove of gay relationships.
Whether or not I personally know the individuals who wish to be married is immaterial. I am not making a judgment about the individuals; I am making a judgment about the value of preserving a tradition.
Quote:Progressives do not have some default position. To choose for them that they do and that it is just change for the heck of it only makes you sound dumb Finn. Further, "stability" is not something that conservatives exclusively value. Further, nothing about gay marriage challenges "stability." Those straight married couples in MA are just as married happily or otherwise as any couple in a state like TX where gay marriage is illegal.
An argument about "stability" is a pure red herring.
I'm sure I care about you thinking I sound dumb as much as you care about me thinking the same of you.
You really need to read what I am writing if you are going to debate my points.
"Just as Progressives believe that if there is a default position it should be change..." is not the same as "Progressives always opt for change."
Progressives do believe there is an inherent value in change, just as Conservatives believe there is an inherent value in stability or, if you prefer, stasis.
Of course it is not only Conservatives who value stability, just as it is not only Progressives who value change, and I never suggested otherwise.
You, and others in this thread, have misinterpreted my comments concerning legalized same-sex marriages as weakening the traditional institution of marriage to mean that same-sex marriages somehow threatens actual existing "straight "marriages. Of course it doesn't, but then I've never contended that it does. Every gay couple in America could be legally married tomorrow and it would have no impact on my marriage or the marriages of any other heterosexual couples. It might, very possibly, have a negative impact on the institution of marriage. Then again, it might not, but the view of many conservatives is that if gay couples can share civil unions which are functionally identical to marriage in terms of legal rights, the risk should not be taken.
I appreciate that you believe that there is no significant risk and that even if there is, it should be taken, but you have a much greater faith in change than I do, and less regard for the importance of tradition. This makes sense because you are, essentially, a Progressive and I am conservative. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have a deliberate desire to pervert American values anymore than it necessarily means that I loathe homosexuals.
Quote:Judicial Overreach? If the Legislature creates laws which contradict the foundation of the constitution or other laws, this is exactly what the SC is for. This conservative talking point is void of any sort of understanding.
Void of any understanding of what?
Your judicial philosophy?
Quote:The "collective" is becoming a phrase in this thread to incorrectly label the majority. The "collective" includes all groups, including homosexuals. Making decisions based on the good of the collective assumes that something about gay marriage threatens the whole of society. I've been waiting for years to hear what that is. If making decisions is based on the want of a majority, it cannot infringe on the equal rights of others. There is no right to majority oppression. This is the same reasons we do not have state sponsored churches.
You argue that the majority’s expressed will to not change the traditional definition of marriage is oppressive and illegal because it infringes upon a right that is granted and protected by the constitution, and yet existence of this right has yet to be confirmed by the US Supreme Court and only by a handful of state supreme courts. It may eventually be confirmed across the board, but until then the force of your argument is driven primarily by your own calculus of justice. Although absolutism is often seen by liberals as a dangerous constraint on tolerance when employed by conservatives, it never seems to be recognized as a manifestation of intolerance or narrow mindedness when practiced by these liberals themselves.
You are convinced that on this issue you are absolutely right and unable to understand, let alone appreciate arguments that might conflict with your position.
One such argument is that since marriage between a man and a woman has been a recognized cornerstone of society for centuries, fundamentally altering it presents a significant risk. The risk is not that it will somehow alter existing heterosexual marriages, but that it will contribute to the undermining of an essential societal cornerstone. You are right that all of the happily married couples in Texas or Massachusetts will not see their relationship change if same sex marriage is made legal, but I don’t know anyone who opposes same sex marriage who bases that opposition on it presenting a threat to existing marriages. This non-existent threat is raised only by supporters who want an easy debate with a strawman.
Quote:Well if marriage has been eroding, then it's been a "straight's only" club. Can't blame the gays for that. If you'd like to present any sort of reason to believe that the presence of gays marrying would somehow contribute negitively, you're welcome to present it.
Why can’t gays be blamed for the erosion of marriage? There are numerous external forces that have combined to erode the institution of marriage and while I don’t believe homosexuality per se is one of them, there is no reason it could not be simply because homosexuals have not been allowed to marry.
The argument for how legalized same-sex marriages will erode the institution has been made repeatedly and if you actually have not heard it, you get a good idea for it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
In essence, the argument is that if the definition of marriage is expanded to include same sex partners the door will have been opened to the inclusion of various other combinations and eventually the societal benefit of the institution will be seriously diminished.
Quote:Like I said, those married in MA are still just as happy, just as sad as before.
Again, the argument doesn’t involve existing heterosexual marriages
Quote:your phrase "in actuality" is normally used to refute someone's claim, but nothing you posted above contradicts Advocate's post.
If the Republican's are tryig to "protect" marriage, what are they protecting it from? What is the threat? I'd argue that some dumb 18 year olds getting married and having no idea what they are doing deliever a larger blow to the institution of marriage than two gay people will ever do. Where's the legislation to "protect" marriage from that? It's total hypocritical crap.
You're repeating yourself.
The Republican platform seeks to protect the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman. They seek to protect it from those who would change the definition by legalizing same sex marriages. The threat of an altered definition has already been addressed.
Once again, it is not the personalities or motivation of the individuals getting married that present a threat to the institution. A “bad” heterosexual marriage doesn’t threaten the institution, it is merely an example of a failed application.
BTW: What is hypocritical about the GOP platform? That it doesn't include wording about protecting marriage from dumb teenagers?
Quote:The challenge that polygamous people face is not the same challenge that gays face. It is not the test of marrying who they wish, but the number. The matter of "who" has been dicussed at great length.
See, someone who believes in polygamy, can marry who they wish. You want to marry Jane? Do it. Want to marry Tina now? Do it, but you have to divorce Jane first. In this secario, the polygamist's dilemma is not if they can marry who they want, but rather the choice between people they want. The inclusion of multiple husbands/wives raises new legal territory outside of anything gay marriage offers. Theoretically, polygamist groups could end up benefitting more than monogamist couples (gay or straight) in terms of filing taxes, for instance.
This is a part of the whole slippery slope logicla fallacy you present. You see, no matter how legal gay marriage is, it doesn't open the door for polygamy. Polygamy must satify other legal and philosophical challenges unrelated to the issues of gay marriage.
This is a weak argument but goes to proving my point that supporters of same sex marriage, typically, work hard to manufacture a distinction between same sex marriage and polygamy that extends beyond the obvious numerical difference.
Frankly I would have more respect for your position if you argued that polygamy should be given the same legal standing as heterosexual and homosexual marriages.
Do you doubt that polygamists can have loving and committed relationships or that they can provide loving and nurturing parenting to their children? If not then why is the number of partners in a marriage any less arbitrary or bigoted a reason for restriction than gender?
If there is a legally protected right to get married afforded all citizens then the question is whether or not any restrictions on this right can be legally imposed. We know that there are restrictions imposed on the right that involve both the number and gender of the partners
Quote:False premise. As listed above, objective reasons can be created to question polygamy. Your insistance on subjectivism, is false.
What are these objective reasons?
I am certainly not insisting on subjectivity, merely recognizing it. The reasons for outlawing polygamy are as subjective as the reasons for outlawing same-sex marriage.
Quote:As an example: Granting gays the right to marriage will not grant gays the right to serve openly in the millitary. That is another stand alone issue that has it's own challenges.
Of course it won’t but you are being disingenuous if you do not acknowledge that once the legal restrictions on gay marriages are lifted throughout the nation, additional restrictions such as the one contained in the military policy of “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” will more readily fall. In fact, I’m fairly certain you are counting on such a trend. This is what many opponents of same-sex marriages fear.
Quote:No, it doesn't. The effort is to gain acceptance for gays in society yes, but the persuit of equal legal rights is solely a single part of it. Law can only go so far. People will or will not accpet gays regaurdless of the law, but our laws still must be fair and offer them the same rights and protections offered to every other straght citizen.
The effort is to gain acceptance for gays in society, and the right to marry will greatly enhance that effort; far more so than securing functionally identical civil unions.
Quote:The LGBT community is carrying their own torch and have no need to carry anyone else's torch. You accusation that they don't carry the polygamy torch because it would be inconvieniant to their cause is vacant.
You trying as hard as you can to put that torch in their hand doesn't make it so Finn.
Then why don’t they carry that torch?
Quote:Oh don't get me wrong. I think those politicians, especially the democrats, lost an opportunity to be brave.
I'm not here to defend some party, I'm advocating equal rights for my fellow citizen. The Dems may lack the will to do it right, but the GOP is certainly the opposition on this matter.
An honest opposition at least. “Losing an opportunity to be brave” is an interesting euphemism for “hypocritical betrayal.”
Quote:Do you drink from the same water fountain as you fellow black citizens as well?
I don’t drink from any water fountain, but not because blacks or gays might as well. I am as concerned about the germs of blacks and gays as I am of straight whites.
Quote:Sorry Finn, but bigotry is a part of the dialog. I understand why the opposition would want that to be off limits though.
Bigotry need not be off limits, merely employed when it actually applies.
Quote:Equality they "deserve," not "want," not "crave" Finn.
Reread what I wrote Diest: “…
want more that the legal equality…the legal equality they
deserve…the social acceptance that they
crave…” You seem to have a penchant for responding to what you either think I wrote or what you would prefer I had written
Quote:Let them have legal equality, and I'm perfectly resolved to let the social aspect play out on its own.
With great expectations that if the legal equality comes in the form of marriage rather than civil union, social acceptance will play out more easily.
Quote:Kind of like the bigot that thinks they are superior to gays enjoys their perch knwing that the law reenforces his beliefs.
Not really. Your analogy is forced.
Quote:I do believe that the moral and ethical high ground rests with supporting the LGBT community's persuit of equal rights. It's the high ground, because it's an uphill walk, and all the people at the bottom are claiming they can see father.
They don't
Get that from a fortune cookie?
It’s good to believe you are taking the moral and ethical high road, and I’m sure you sincerely do, but it is intellectually immature to assume that all who do not agree with you are immoral and unethical.
