Quote from: mdgiles on August 02, 2012, 08:16:18 AM
It isn't a question of not protecting minority rights; it a question of a loud minority demanding special rights.

Being able to marry like everyone else is demanding "special" rights?

If gays demanded that their social security benefits be doubled, then sure, they'd be demanding "special" rights.

QuoteBTW, I've asked this question a number of times, and as usual you ignore it. What's in it for the rest of us?

You cannot possibly be this selfish.

QuoteYou after all are asking for the rest of society to upset what has been proven to work over millenia.

1. Actually, the "proven to work over millenia" marriage was polygamy, or arranged marriage in which 13 year old girls are forced to marry 40 year old men and work in the kitchen.  The recent conception of marriage isn't traditional in the slightest.  Polygamy existed in the old testament.

2. Why are you under the impression that the traditions invented by primitive, bronze age men is a framework for our society?  We've overturned practically every tradition on its head in the past century for the good of the human race.  Why do you think something being old has anything to do with its merit?

3. You hate it when I bring it up.  But your support of traditional marriage haven worked for "millenia" is precisely the same argument used by proponents of slavery and segregationists.

What's in it for us to end slavery?  Why upset a system that has worked for millenia?

You hate it when I bring it up.  But explain to me what the difference in your argument is.  No, bringing up lynching has no relevance to the topic; explain why tradition can be defended just because it is old.

Quote
So how does society gain? And will you be satisfied with this, or are you just lying again?

My main concerns are ethical.  I do not believe it is fair that some people cannot marry because of entirely arbitrary restrictions based on five thousand year old beliefs.  There is no logical reason why marriage should be straight exclusive.  Why should others have to suffer so you can maintain your own religious beliefs?  Does your religion dictate what other people can do?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 02, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
Being able to marry like everyone else is demanding "special" rights?

If gays demanded that their social security benefits be doubled, then sure, they'd be demanding "special" rights.

You cannot possibly be this selfish.

OF COURSE THEY ARE DEMANDING SPECIAL RIGHTS. Any man and woman can get married, they want to change that. ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT ISN'T A SPECIAL RIGHT IS SIMPLY LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
Actually you know Goddam well you are asking for something that has NEVER existed before.

Quote1. Actually, the "proven to work over millenia" marriage was polygamy, or arranged marriage in which 13 year old girls are forced to marry 40 year old men and work in the kitchen.  The recent conception of marriage isn't traditional in the slightest.  Polygamy existed in the old testament.

Polygamy hasn't worked. Having large number of the female population monopolized by some Alpha males always leads to conflict. AND it has never existed in the West. There are two major strands running through Western civilization. Greco-Roman  and Judeo-Christian. Only in Judaism can polygamy have been said to exist, and there is some question as to whether it existed to any degree under the refounding of the kingdom under the Maccabees. It definitely didn't exist under Rabbinical Judaism, didn't exist under Greco-Roman culture, and didn't exist under Christianity. So as usual your argument makes little or no sense.

Quote2. Why are you under the impression that the traditions invented by primitive, bronze age men is a framework for our society?  We've overturned practically every tradition on its head in the past century for the good of the human race.  Why do you think something being old has anything to do with its merit?

Uh, because they work? simply getting rid of something because it's old is the hallmark of progressives, who always seem to believe in their own "brilliance". It never seems to occur to them that we have held on to a custom because it works.

Quote3. You hate it when I bring it up.  But your support of traditional marriage haven worked for "millenia" is precisely the same argument used by proponents of slavery and segregationists.

And as I keep explaining to you, go pick up a fucking history book. Segregation has far more to do with justification for 19th century Slavery, than it has to do with anything else. One of the reasons why slavery was different in South America was that Spaniards and Portuguese had experience with slavery. That had fought the Moors for 900 years. They had been subject to slave raids by the Arabs. They had been parts of the Roman Empire. To them slavery was simply bad luck. You were in the wrong place at the wrong time. No justification was needed. To The Northern Europeans it was different. Justification for their actions was necessary. Especially when from the 1600's on when religious figures began to point out that slavery was wrong. And when the colonies freed themselves from England, the dichotomy became glaring. As the North freed their slaves (or sold them South) and began to attack the institution, the South fought back by finding racial reasons. Slaves were inferior and slave owners were doing them a "favor" by seeing to their welfare. These attitudes of inherent inferiority and social superiority on the part of whites bleed right over into the Jim Crow era. One of the main reasons to stop intermarriage is it's difficult to support those attitudes when you're talking about your child or grandchild. Oh, and in the era of mainly muscle powered labor, slavery makes sense. It's easy for human beings to outlaw slavery when you have machines to do the work.

QuoteWhat's in it for us to end slavery?  Why upset a system that has worked for millenia?

See my point above. We had machines to provide the labor.

QuoteYou hate it when I bring it up.  But explain to me what the difference in your argument is.  No, bringing up lynching has no relevance to the topic; explain why tradition can be defended just because it is old.

Of course you'd say that. If you're going to compare gay rights to the Civil Rights struggle the first thing you'd have to ignore is the shear level of violence blacks were subject to. If you don't, any argument you make is quickly shown to be totally false.

QuoteMy main concerns are ethical.  I do not believe it is fair that some people cannot marry because of entirely arbitrary restrictions based on five thousand year old beliefs.  There is no logical reason why marriage should be straight exclusive.  Why should others have to suffer so you can maintain your own religious beliefs?  Does your religion dictate what other people can do?

And my concerns are practical. You are asking us to fly in the face of thousands of years of experience, upset millions of devout believers - WHO INCIDENTALLY, ARE GUARANTEED THE RIGHT TO THEIR BELIEFS BY THE CONSTITUTION - and engage in the likes of a social experiment we have never seen before; and the best reason you can give is that it would be "nice" for gay people. Not only doesn't that make any sense, but experience (I know, you hate experience because it usually shows you to be wrong) has shown that you, and your ilk, won't be satisfied with that. Down the line you'll be demanding access to children so you can impart your belief system to them. And since gays won't be producing very many children of their own, I would guess that you'll be demanding access to other's children.

http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

....."What's noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough.  There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change.  Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss.  They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard.  And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed.  And with good reason.  They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy.  So they quickly "cut loose" the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

"Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous.  Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change."

So it seems that Psychiatrists, with no scientific evidence whatsoever, gave in to demands of those afflicted with what was until then, a mental illness, and declared them no longer afflicted. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all illness could be cured so easily.  Sort of "Zap! You're well."

We have all heard the saying, "The inmates are running the nut house." 

I'll have a Chick-fil-A combo with coleslaw, please.  And a peach shake.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 02, 2012, 08:25:28 AM
Being able to marry like everyone else is demanding "special" rights?

I believe marriage is a special right. To be allowed the freedom to marry the one you love is very special , and should be a right we allow equally, no matter sexual orientation.   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 02, 2012, 09:59:43 AM


I believe marriage is a special right. To be allowed the freedom to marry the one you love is very special , and should be a right we allow equally, no matter sexual orientation.

Well, okay, except that's not what you're demanding. The entire debate is about MONEY. A tiny percentage of the population wants, not necessarily to be "married," but to reap advantages available to those who are married in the more traditional -- heterosexual -- sense. I'm talking about tax advantages primarily, but also advantages that come from being a "dependent," such as insurance coverage and unemployment compensation and even welfare payments and food stamps. Vocal gays believe there should be no cost connected to their lifestyle, and they should therefore be able to redefine "marriage" -- and whatever else they take a notion to redefine -- so that the cost of being gay disappears.

Good luck with that.

To be honest, I firmly believe that most of the built-in financial advantages of being heterosexually married, which have infiltrated our legal system, and especially our tax codes, over the decades are absolute bullshit. Why should a man who makes $70,000 a year and is not married to a woman pay $13,631 in federal income tax when another man who makes $70,000 a year but happens to be married to a woman pays only $9,756? This "Oh, well, you can afford it more" attitude just burns my ass. But that advantage is there, and it illustrates perfectly what the LGBT crowd is after with the "gay marriage" campaign.

Judging by yesterday's response by the public to the Chick-fil-A controversy, you're gonna enjoy a cold day in Hell before you get what you're after.

QuoteTo be honest, I firmly believe that most of the built-in financial advantages of being heterosexually married, which have infiltrated our legal system, and especially our tax codes, over the decades are absolute bullshit. Why should a man who makes $70,000 a year and is not married to a woman pay $13,631 in federal income tax when another man who makes $70,000 a year but happens to be married to a woman pays only $9,756? This "Oh, well, you can afford it more" attitude just burns my ass. But that advantage is there, and it illustrates perfectly what the LGBT crowd is after with the "gay marriage" campaign.

The state taxes married couples less, because the state has a vested interest in the possible production of future taxpayers. It's just that simple. And before all the gay marriage advocates, throw in their two cents worth, no that possibility isn't there in every situation (childless couples, the elderly, etc); but for ease of definition, it's simpler to say one man/one woman. And In any case, the possibility is pretty much foreclosed in same sex marriages.

Quote from: mdgiles on August 02, 2012, 10:35:24 AM
The state taxes married couples less, because the state has a vested interest in the possible production of future taxpayers. It's just that simple. And before all the gay marriage advocates, throw in their two cents worth, no that possibility isn't there in every situation (childless couples, the elderly, etc); but for ease of definition, it's simpler to say one man/one woman. And In any case, the possibility is pretty much foreclosed in same sex marriages.

Oh, I understand that, Giles. Successful heterosexual marriages tend to crank out new taxpayers. But I very much doubt if that's the core reason the tax code is written the way it is. I think the core reason is the relentlessly progressive nature of the taxing system. I don't mean that it's a result of "progressive" politics (though it is, in large part), but rather that the entire tax code is "progressive," meaning that those who generate more income (not necessarily those who are wealthier, e.g. Warren Buffett) pay taxes at sharply higher rates. An unmarried man -- one not saddled with a woman who creates no income -- is considered to be a richer man than his peer who has taken on the responsibility of a wife. The whole thing is a weird throwback. The HUGE difference between the "Single" tax rate and the "Married Filing Jointly" tax rate goes WAY back. It is a reflection of life in the US before, say 1962.

How can you justify the higher tax rate today? These days, the chance that a married heterosexual couple will produce a child don't materially differ from the same chance for an unmarried heterosexual couple who live together. I have personally lived in a situation where I took up residence with a very attractive redhead (female) and for six years paid the astronomical "Single" income tax rate on my income. We didn't live our lives differently from most legally married couples. We didn't have any children together, but that probably had more to do with two facts: she already had four kids, and I'd been spayed (or is it neutered?). Why was I treated differently under the tax code because I didn't marry the redhead? Without the circumstances I just described, we were certainly capable of turning out new voters. We damn sure practiced the necessary ritual every chance we got. If I HAD been emitting viable sperm, and if she HAD been willing to conceive, we STILL would have been treated the way we were under the tax code.

The whole thing just makes no sense.

Oh, as a follow-up, the redhead and I discussed more than once getting married in a cheap civil ceremony on New Year's Eve every year, then filing for a marriage dissolution on New Year's Day. It sounds crazy, but it would have saved us both PILES of money on our taxes.

Quote from: tbone0106 on August 02, 2012, 10:22:05 AM
Well, okay, except that's not what you're demanding. The entire debate is about MONEY. A tiny percentage of the population wants, not necessarily to be "married," but to reap advantages available to those who are married in the more traditional -- heterosexual -- sense. I'm talking about tax advantages primarily, but also advantages that come from being a "dependent," such as insurance coverage and unemployment compensation and even welfare payments and food stamps. Vocal gays believe there should be no cost connected to their lifestyle, and they should therefore be able to redefine "marriage" -- and whatever else they take a notion to redefine -- so that the cost of being gay disappears.

Good luck with that.

To be honest, I firmly believe that most of the built-in financial advantages of being heterosexually married, which have infiltrated our legal system, and especially our tax codes, over the decades are absolute bullshit. Why should a man who makes $70,000 a year and is not married to a woman pay $13,631 in federal income tax when another man who makes $70,000 a year but happens to be married to a woman pays only $9,756? This "Oh, well, you can afford it more" attitude just burns my ass. But that advantage is there, and it illustrates perfectly what the LGBT crowd is after with the "gay marriage" campaign.

Judging by yesterday's response by the public to the Chick-fil-A controversy, you're gonna enjoy a cold day in Hell before you get what you're after.

What Im after is equality, and this country has been moving towards it,  in many areas,  for many years. I don't see why hell will have to get cold for us to move another step forward in the equality arena.   

Im Thankful for the chic-fila debacle, it spurred many a debate, not only online , but in our day to day lives. Sure, lots of closed minded people are saying some really harsh things about homosexuals, though they were anyway, however, LOTS of uneducated people are getting to know reality and the actual issues at hand. 


And I do agree, T , our inequality in tax advantages are skewed as well. Might have a difference of opinion on who the advantages really lean toward, but at least we can agree that there's a problem.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 02, 2012, 02:14:28 PM

What Im after is equality, and this country has been moving towards it,  in many areas,  for many years. I don't see why hell will have to get cold for us to move another step forward in the equality arena.   

Im Thankful for the chic-fila debacle, it spurred many a debate, not only online , but in our day to day lives. Sure, lots of closed minded people are saying some really harsh things about homosexuals, though they were anyway, however, LOTS of uneducated people are getting to know reality and the actual issues at hand. 


And I do agree, T , our inequality in tax advantages are skewed as well. Might have a difference of opinion on who the advantages really lean toward, but at least we can agree that there's a problem.

You know what's funny? The head of Chik-Fil-A never said a word about gays, gay marriage....................nothing. He merely voiced his personal beliefs about marriage, according to his Christian religion. It was the left that went totally berserk over it.

When the people on the left call for equality, and then demonstrate their utter intolerance for Christians or anyone else that doesn't agree with them............................it makes it very difficult to sympathize with their plight.

I will agree that the tax code is a screwed up mess.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on August 02, 2012, 02:14:28 PM

What Im after is equality, and this country has been moving towards it,  in many areas,  for many years. I don't see why hell will have to get cold for us to move another step forward in the equality arena.   

Im Thankful for the chic-fila debacle, it spurred many a debate, not only online , but in our day to day lives. Sure, lots of closed minded people are saying some really harsh things about homosexuals, though they were anyway, however, LOTS of uneducated people are getting to know reality and the actual issues at hand. 


And I do agree, T , our inequality in tax advantages are skewed as well. Might have a difference of opinion on who the advantages really lean toward, but at least we can agree that there's a problem.

Lets just assume they got everything they wanted, made them equal to those of married straight couples, but were not allowed to call it marriage, but rather something else like union or vow agreement, etc.
Would that satisfy you?

Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2012, 02:33:17 PM
Lets just assume they got everything they wanted, made them equal to those of married straight couples, but were not allowed to call it marriage, but rather something else like union or vow agreement, etc.
Would that satisfy you?

That's been my take on it, all along. Many gays feel the same way, since they were born and raised by heterosexual, man and woman, married parents.

I'm sick of thinking and talking about gay people. Give them a civil union, give them the identical shit that straight married people get............................including the hassle of divorce............and be f**king done with it.

Who the hell cares? They just don't get to redefine the word marriage..............that's it.

Well, not totally. They also don't get to infiltrate our schools and start teaching our kids things that go against our personal beliefs.

Quote from: kramarat on August 02, 2012, 02:26:14 PM
You know what's funny? The head of Chik-Fil-A never said a word about gays, gay marriage....................nothing. He merely voiced his personal beliefs about marriage, according to his Christian religion. It was the left that went totally berserk over it.

When the people on the left call for equality, and then demonstrate their utter intolerance for Christians or anyone else that doesn't agree with them............................it makes it very difficult to sympathize with their plight.

I believe the CEO of Chic fila said that he supported the traditional biblical family unit and then threw company money at his advocacy. Are the liberals upset about it? Yes, but there are many others that aren't liberal who think it was a bad decision as well. You don't have to be a raging Lib to be on the side of equality. 

People are trying to use the tolerance stance as a blow to the homosexual community, no pun intended. I, for one, don't believe that being intolerant of segregation and inequality is a bad thing.  Trying to twist the 'tolerance for people that are different than you' into 'tolerance for those that deem you "perverted"/not equal' is a perversion of a necessary teaching.   Many people have been hurt physically and emotionally over this inequality and old biblical ways, so it's understandable that, in this day in age, people would get upset. We've been taught desegregation, trying to force us back there, no matter how good the waffle fry tastes, is going to cause a strong American uproar, because that's just who we are.

Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2012, 02:33:17 PM
Lets just assume they got everything they wanted, made them equal to those of married straight couples, but were not allowed to call it marriage, but rather something else like union or vow agreement, etc.
Would that satisfy you?

I dont see why it couldn't be called same sex marriage as long as it allows for equal rights as in marriage. 


Im not hung up over the name, we dont call homosexuals heterosexuals, do we? Obviously there's different names to describe different things, I just dont believe the treatment should be any different. 

Quote from: kramarat on August 02, 2012, 03:21:05 PM
Who the hell cares? They just don't get to redefine the word marriage..............that's it.

Well, not totally. They also don't get to infiltrate our schools and start teaching our kids things that go against our personal beliefs.

I dont understand why we need to redefine words, just add some to the beginning, "same sex marriage" works fine, doesnt it?

What types of things are being taught that are against Our beliefs, in your opinion?