Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Most people today feel like this tradition need not be changed. Not because the lifestyle is wrong, but because they feel that this is a valuable tradition that is not necessary to change in order to accomodate a few who would want it to change.

Explain to me why the tradition is valuable and it is not neccessary to change the tradition; especially given that nothing will be changed for those who still wish to practice the traditional marriage of man/woman. Do so clearly, please.

Also, seeing as we are a society of inclusion, explain to me the damage done by allowing others to practice a different tradition. Clearly, please.

Cycloptichorn

Nope.

You need to make a convincing argument to the majority WHY WE should change the established traditions to accomodate the extreme minority.

So far, the pro gay marriage has been unable to convince the majority that change is necessary. Equal rights is not a reason as compromises have been offered in some cases and refused by the pro gay marriage.

Give it a shot Cyclo. Maybe you can make a convincing argument without the name calling.

0 Replies

Bigots will never be convinced. It is not up to the oppressed to force bigots to stop being so. There is a sizable amount of people who cringe everytime they see a white woman with a black man. Yet interracial marriage has been legal for years. People who aren't bigots and understand the issue support gay rights.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Bigots will never be convinced. It is not up to the oppressed to force bigots to stop being so. There is a sizable amount of people who cringe everytime they see a white woman with a black man. Yet interracial marriage has been legal for years. People who aren't bigots and understand the issue support gay rights.

Once again there is a difference between race and homosexuality. You can't help but be born a minority. The same cannot be said for homosexuality. Until this is proven you want society to change for a life style that someone chooses. Once again your name-calling doesn't sway the argument one bit. It shows a lack of intelligence in being able to convince society and the majority why changes should be made.

No one has still answered my question. Can gay people marry?

0 Replies

Sure, they can marry. They just aren't allowed to in most places.

woiyo:

Quote:

Nope.

You need to make a convincing argument to the majority WHY WE should change the established traditions to accomodate the extreme minority.

So far, the pro gay marriage has been unable to convince the majority that change is necessary. Equal rights is not a reason as compromises have been offered in some cases and refused by the pro gay marriage.

Give it a shot Cyclo. Maybe you can make a convincing argument without the name calling.

This is false. We live in an inclusive society; you have to have reasons for prohibiting something other than 'that's how we have done it in the past.' See inter-racial marriage, slavery, women voting, and a variety of 'Traditions' which were changed.

You have a few questions that you are unable to answer; namely, just how anyone is hurt by this, at all. Noone has been able to answer this question. Noone has even attempted to do so. This is the fundamental failing of the anti-gay marriage argument; there is no convincing argument even being put FORWARD that shows that traditional marriage is damaged in any way.

Slavish adherence to tradition is a sign of a little mind, guys; a sign that one has little reasoning ability for themselves. I don't really think that of either of you; I don't understand why you wouldn't try to make a stronger argument against Gay marriage instead of the extremely weak 'tradition' argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
Bigots will never be convinced. It is not up to the oppressed to force bigots to stop being so. There is a sizable amount of people who cringe everytime they see a white woman with a black man. Yet interracial marriage has been legal for years. People who aren't bigots and understand the issue support gay rights.

Once again there is a difference between race and homosexuality. You can't help but be born a minority. The same cannot be said for homosexuality.

So I am assuming, you chose to be gay?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sure, they can marry. They just aren't allowed to in most places.

woiyo:

Quote:
Nope.

You need to make a convincing argument to the majority WHY WE should change the established traditions to accomodate the extreme minority.

So far, the pro gay marriage has been unable to convince the majority that change is necessary. Equal rights is not a reason as compromises have been offered in some cases and refused by the pro gay marriage.

Give it a shot Cyclo. Maybe you can make a convincing argument without the name calling.

This is false. We live in an inclusive society; you have to have reasons for prohibiting something other than 'that's how we have done it in the past.' See inter-racial marriage, slavery, women voting, and a variety of 'Traditions' which were changed.

You have a few questions that you are unable to answer; namely, just how anyone is hurt by this, at all. Noone has been able to answer this question. Noone has even attempted to do so. This is the fundamental failing of the anti-gay marriage argument; there is no convincing argument even being put FORWARD that shows that traditional marriage is damaged in any way.

Slavish adherence to tradition is a sign of a little mind, guys; a sign that one has little reasoning ability for themselves. I don't really think that of either of you; I don't understand why you wouldn't try to make a stronger argument against Gay marriage instead of the extremely weak 'tradition' argument.

Cycloptichorn

Your going around in circles. I have already stated my position. There is no equal rights argument as gays are not being denied any rights (except for property issue and of legal issues that can easily be overcome). There is no compelling reason to change this tradition based upon your stated argument so far.

How will our society benefit from this change that effects only a small group?

Should Utah petition the govt to reinstate polygamy?

Should be cancel the Thanksgiving tradition because a few have nothing to be thankful for?

I am trying to establish a base for debate. To just say that "slavish adherence to tradition is a sign of a small mind", indicates you either can not put together a effective argument or you have just run out of things to say so you go to name calling.

0 Replies

OMFG! The polygamy canard again. Woiyo's rants are the ones that are circular. He keeps mentioning the size of the minority, as if Equal Rights only apply to "large minorities."

Society always benfits when people are treated equally. When some are not free, noine of us are free.

BTW stating that black is white is not an argument.

Quote:

I have already stated my position. There is no equal rights argument as gays are not being denied any rights

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

OMFG! The polygamy canard again. Woiyo's rants are the ones that are circular. He keeps mentioning the size of the minority, as if Equal Rights only apply to "large minorities."

Society always benfits when people are treated equally. When some are not free, noine of us are free.

BTW stating that black is white is not an argument.

Quote:
I have already stated my position. There is no equal rights argument as gays are not being denied any rights

You obviously do not have the ability to intelligently debate this or any issue. This is the reason I have ignored your irrelavent posts.

I will wait for a more intelligent response from Cyclo while you and your childish rants will continue to be ignored.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
OMFG! The polygamy canard again. Woiyo's rants are the ones that are circular. He keeps mentioning the size of the minority, as if Equal Rights only apply to "large minorities."

Society always benfits when people are treated equally. When some are not free, noine of us are free.

BTW stating that black is white is not an argument.

Quote:
I have already stated my position. There is no equal rights argument as gays are not being denied any rights

You obviously do not have the ability to intelligently debate this or any issue. This is the reason I have ignored your irrelavent [sic]posts.

I will wait for a more intelligent response from Cyclo while you and your childish rants will continue to be ignored.

Then why are you responding?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
OMFG! The polygamy canard again. Woiyo's rants are the ones that are circular. He keeps mentioning the size of the minority, as if Equal Rights only apply to "large minorities."

Society always benfits when people are treated equally. When some are not free, noine of us are free.

BTW stating that black is white is not an argument.

Quote:
I have already stated my position. There is no equal rights argument as gays are not being denied any rights

You obviously do not have the ability to intelligently debate this or any issue. This is the reason I have ignored your irrelavent posts.

I will wait for a more intelligent response from Cyclo while you and your childish rants will continue to be ignored.

Translated: I can't refute what Chrissee posts so I will attack the messenger. LOL

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure, they can marry. They just aren't allowed to in most places.

woiyo:

Quote:
Nope.

You need to make a convincing argument to the majority WHY WE should change the established traditions to accomodate the extreme minority.

So far, the pro gay marriage has been unable to convince the majority that change is necessary. Equal rights is not a reason as compromises have been offered in some cases and refused by the pro gay marriage.

Give it a shot Cyclo. Maybe you can make a convincing argument without the name calling.

This is false. We live in an inclusive society; you have to have reasons for prohibiting something other than 'that's how we have done it in the past.' See inter-racial marriage, slavery, women voting, and a variety of 'Traditions' which were changed.

You have a few questions that you are unable to answer; namely, just how anyone is hurt by this, at all. Noone has been able to answer this question. Noone has even attempted to do so. This is the fundamental failing of the anti-gay marriage argument; there is no convincing argument even being put FORWARD that shows that traditional marriage is damaged in any way.

Slavish adherence to tradition is a sign of a little mind, guys; a sign that one has little reasoning ability for themselves. I don't really think that of either of you; I don't understand why you wouldn't try to make a stronger argument against Gay marriage instead of the extremely weak 'tradition' argument.

Cycloptichorn

Your going around in circles. I have already stated my position. There is no equal rights argument as gays are not being denied any rights (except for property issue and of legal issues that can easily be overcome). There is no compelling reason to change this tradition based upon your stated argument so far.

How will our society benefit from this change that effects only a small group?

Should Utah petition the govt to reinstate polygamy?

Should be cancel the Thanksgiving tradition because a few have nothing to be thankful for?

I am trying to establish a base for debate. To just say that "slavish adherence to tradition is a sign of a small mind", indicates you either can not put together a effective argument or you have just run out of things to say so you go to name calling.

I do believe that it is possible to have a productive debate on the issue, even though we are on different sides.

And you will note that while I said that "slavish adherence to tradition is a sign of a small mind", I also said that I don't believe that either of you guys have a small mind, so I can't understand why tradition is the main argument against letting gays marry.

You state that no rights are being denied to gays who are not allowed to marry; but if you accept that being gay is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, then you must realize that marriage is part of the traditional definition of the 'pursuit of happiness' that is so integral to the American way of life.

Now, I believe the largest hurdles to be overcome when it comes to gay marriage are legal ones. The rights issues. I really don't care what one calls it, I just think it is wrong to not allow people to pursue their happiness based upon sexual orientation.

You ask,

Quote:

How will our society benefit from this change that effects only a small group?

There are many examples where providing rights for the small groups helps uphold the tradition of freedom and equality we enjoy here in America. Giving Blacks the right to vote; protecting free speech, even if the group is reprehensible (neo-nazi scum, etc). As an inclusive society, we have a responsibility to respect the rights of a minority, when, it can be shown that respecting those rights does little or no damage to the majority in the long run.

Also, it should be noted that one of the major criticisms of the Gay lifestyle has been it's total detachment from moral values and lack of stability; legalizing gay Marriage/unions would add stability to the community and perhaps even bring these people into a more mainstream life. It is hard to see how the community could fail to benefit from that, and hard to see exactly how it would hurt the community as a whole.

Quote:

Should Utah petition the govt to reinstate polygamy?

From a legal standpoint, I don't know. There are complexities of law involving inheritance, insurance, and legal status of couples that would be difficult to answer in a short post.

From a social standpoint, hey, whatever floats people's boats works just fine for me. Many societies have been polygamous throughout history (even many kings in the bible had more than one wife and harems) and therefore the idea isn't crazy, but represents someone's traditions. If traditions are important, and we are a mix of different types of people here in America whose ideas are seen as equally important in the eyes of the law, then it is difficult to say that they shouldn't if enough people want them to.

I'd like to make it clear that I consider polygamy a completely seperate issue; anyone who is dumb enough to marry more than one person deserves exactly what they get, in my opinion....

Quote:

Should be cancel the Thanksgiving tradition because a few have nothing to be thankful for?

Bad analogy; a better one is this: should we prevent certain people from celebrating Thanksgiving on a different day if they wish?

---

I really, really believe that the test for whether something should be made legal or not should be: does it do any harm? In this case, I remain unconvinced that allowing gays to marry actually does anyone any harm.

It isn't as if gays don't live together exactly as if they were married; failure to endorse their marriages does nothing except deny certain rights and happinesses to people who are guilty of no crime, have done nothing wrong, and just want to enjoy life just like you do.

I would love for someone to point out to me exactly how traditional marriage will be weakend/harmed by allowing gays to have Unions, or marriages; I would note that the areas which allow gays to marry haven't seen any marked decline in social values or experienced any problems from it...

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I will restate my position on polygamy here. Polygamy, as it was practiced in Utah, is not an equal partnership between loving adults. It is not an equivalent situation to same-sex marriage.

J_B wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.

Actually, MM, my concerns wtih polygamy have nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage but with the premise that a man should take more than one wife in order to be the master of his domain. Within the religious group you mention women are not allowed to have multiple husbands, women are not considered equal partners within the marriage (polygomous or monogomous) and women are subservient to men in most, if not all, aspects of their relationships.

If you come to me with an example where the government has outlawed an equal partership between consenting adults, where neither party is subservient to the other and there is no abuse or harm, then I will jump on their bandwagon as well.

I repeat, if you come to me with an example where the government has outlawed an equal partership between consenting adults, where neither party is subservient to the other and there is no abuse or harm, then I will jump on their bandwagon as well.

0 Replies

Cyclo, good argument. I will attempt to respond.

"I really, really believe that the test for whether something should be made legal or not should be: does it do any harm? In this case, I remain unconvinced that allowing gays to marry actually does anyone any harm.

It isn't as if gays don't live together exactly as if they were married; failure to endorse their marriages does nothing except deny certain rights and happinesses to people who are guilty of no crime, have done nothing wrong, and just want to enjoy life just like you do.

I would love for someone to point out to me exactly how traditional marriage will be weakend/harmed by allowing gays to have Unions, or marriages; I would note that the areas which allow gays to marry haven't seen any marked decline in social values or experienced any problems from it... "
---------------------------------------------------------
This society was formed based upon certain values and traditions. One of those traditions was marriage between 1 woman and one man. This tradition passed down from generation to generation provided a basis for a stable continuation of the society and children were raised to acknowledge this tradition as important to society. We were raised to believe that this tradition was almost "sacred" to our society. ( I understand other societies have different traditons such as those practiced in the Middle East for example. However, their traditions should have no bearing on our traditions.)

Over the last 25 or so years, our society and mainly our courts have disturbed the stability of the responsibility that comes with this tradition. Some people have either married for the wrong reasons or are quick to terminate the marriage mainly for selfish reasons. So yes, we have seen divorce rates increase to what I am told is about 50%. This is not good, but this is also a point for another time, but somewhat relavent to my point of view.

Traditional marriage will not be "harmed" TODAY by gay marriage. However, in the future, it would, in my opinion, further reduce the importance of the tradition for future generations.

Other groups that are currently excluded would petition for changes such as :

1. 2 single hetro people who just do not want to marry but want to live together and own property.

2. groups, or co-ops, several people wanting to do the same.

Eliminating the entire tradition altogether has been discussed which would allow a "anything goes" approach, which I would not support.

I agree that no one should be discriminated against in this regard. The rights to passing property, medical decisions, employment benefits etc...can be provided to ANY couple forming a "civil union" under law.

No one should be denied this right due to sexual orientation.

These rights/benefits can be provided, while maintaining the tradition of marriage in this society.

Why would this compromise not be satisfactory?

0 Replies

It would be satisfactory to me, but I feel that groups on the fringe on either side would not think so. But f*ck em, it's always that way, isn't it?

I personally agree with a suggestion put forth by McG long ago: there should be a difference between the secular idea of the Civil Union and the Religious idea of marriage. The state has every business dealing with insurance, rights, etc; secular matters. It has no business dealing with marriage, which is traditionally a Religious matter before whatever god one happens to believe in.

I would say that allowing Divorce to become more acceptable to society is much more damaging to our traditional way of life than allowing Gays to marry; I heard a couple of women talking while perusing some items at my local mall the other day, and one of them was getting married. The other one asked some inane question about whether or not it should happen, the bride-to-be responded with 'Well, I can always get divorced from him, and it isn't as if he isn't rich, right?' I wanted to slap her....

Cheers!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cy, I was preparing a rather long reply to your earlier post, but Woiyo has done a much better job of explaination which covers my basic thoughts on the matter, so I will let that speak for me also.

And I will second what you had to say in your above post. And I think the same sex marriage movement would be a lot better off if the word compromise were in their dictionary. Smile

Have a good day Cy.

0 Replies

I think that the majority of same-sex proponents would support such a scheme; the problem is that the hardliners (on both sides) are far, far louder than anyone in the middle...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It would be satisfactory to me, but I feel that groups on the fringe on either side would not think so. But f*ck em, it's always that way, isn't it?

I personally agree with a suggestion put forth by McG long ago: there should be a difference between the secular idea of the Civil Union and the Religious idea of marriage. The state has every business dealing with insurance, rights, etc; secular matters. It has no business dealing with marriage, which is traditionally a Religious matter before whatever god one happens to believe in.

I would say that allowing Divorce to become more acceptable to society is much more damaging to our traditional way of life than allowing Gays to marry; I heard a couple of women talking while perusing some items at my local mall the other day, and one of them was getting married. The other one asked some inane question about whether or not it should happen, the bride-to-be responded with 'Well, I can always get divorced from him, and it isn't as if he isn't rich, right?' I wanted to slap her....

Cheers!

Cycloptichorn

I have purposely omitted any religious references as it has no place in this debate.

However, I do clearly recall I had to go to City Hall to fill out a Application for Marriage License, and pay a fee, for the priviliage of having our Union recognized under law.

Good dabate, I wonder who from the pro side will be able to offer a rational argument against a compromise.

0 Replies

My first marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace in a civil ceremony. I received a marriage license and was from that point considered married. I have no problem with separating a religious service from a civil service as long as the secular terminology applies to everyone.

On the other hand, certain churches are willing to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and I think they should be allowed to do so with the terminology applying to everyone.

I do not believe that the law should disallow same-sex marriage being performed within a denomination if the denomination chooses to perform it. Again, the same terminology should apply to everyone.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

How will our society benefit from this change that effects only a small group?

traditionalists tell us that marriage creates stability, which is passed on to society. there's no reliable proof that gay marriages are less stable than straight marriages that i'm aware of.

but to throw out something to ponder, paraphrasing your statement;

How will our societysuffer from this change that effects only a small group?

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

My first marriage was performed by a Justice of the Peace in a civil ceremony. I received a marriage license and was from that point considered married. I have no problem with separating a religious service from a civil service as long as the secular terminology applies to everyone.

On the other hand, certain churches are willing to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples and I think they should be allowed to do so with the terminology applying to everyone.

I do not believe that the law should disallow same-sex marriage being performed within a denomination if the denomination chooses to perform it. Again, the same terminology should apply to everyone.

Religion has no standing in this argument. Religious practices have no foundation in our laws.

The point of the debate is from the perpective of legal rights and has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

0 Replies

Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know