A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

Every single piece of legislation is the imposition of societal constraints. In most Western countries we have a democratic process for this.

And any legislation that bans something that does no harm is wrong. Yes, we have a somewhat democratic process for this.

Well, most people disagree with you that it does no harm. Many things are banned "that do no harm." And for the record: nothing is "banned" here. Marriage is simply what it is meant to be and not what it is not meant to be.

Meant by whom?

And yes, there is something banned here. Gays are banned from receiving the gov't benefits for marrying the person they choose.

 

[BDBoop]

I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.

What, because extrapolation is against your personal belief system?

I know you are too stupid to grasp this, but "extrapolation" is not a democratic process.

I know you're too stupid to grasp this, but you can't throw away the rest of the world and declare California's 47% a tiny fraction of fuck-all anything.

 

[Artevelde]

This is hardly a whim.

But the important distinction you are ignoring is that these gay couples are already living together in our society. They are already productive members of our society. They are often already raising children. We simply think they should have the same gov't benefits for doing so.

It is a whim. You point it out yourself by writing that they are already living together. Obviously they are, so what?

And government benefits as an argument? Please. Personally, I don't see why there should be any government benefits to being married.

So what? They should be able to live together with full legal and religious rights accorded. I know this will come as a total shock to you, but some among them are christians, and feel they are living in sin.

It may come as a shock to you, but I know quite a few homosexual people, including friends of mine.

That being said, how come you are so dumb that you don't realize that people who contract a civil marriage will still not be married religiously and therefore will still not be married as Christians (or other religions for that matter). And why do you bring in religious marriage in a discussion about civil marriage? Are you too ignorant to differentiate between the two?

 

[Artevelde]

What, because extrapolation is against your personal belief system?

I know you are too stupid to grasp this, but "extrapolation" is not a democratic process.

I know you're too stupid to grasp this, but you can't throw away the rest of the world and declare California's 47% a tiny fraction of fuck-all anything.

Yes, bacause that minority of Californians are so much more "enlightened" than all the other people in the rest of the world I guess? Can you be more provincial and narrow-minded?

 

[KevinWestern]

Newsflash: if you want to live in society there are societal constraints. Of course you can always decide to become a hermit and seperate yourself completely from society. Good luck with that.

Art – You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints?

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup. I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they’re a part of – so be it. I just don’t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it’s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

Art – Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from infringing on my rights, such as burglary, or assault.

However, as for things that don’t infringe on the rights and property of others – such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect – these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals.





.
.
.

 

[Artevelde]

Christ! It's like the entire season of Dancing With the Stars being broadcast in one thread. You make a good point, he switches partners and does the fandango. Then the cha-cha. Then the morange. The the foxtrot, generally at the end of whiskey-tango.

Pick a hill and die on it. You lose, you lose but you've changed the dance so many times, half the board is seasick.

I realize you're intellectually challenged.

 

[BluePhantom]

You've got it backward. It's a very tiny minority who wants to change this social norm.

Go read the polls again. It's actually the majority of the nation who want to change this social norm.

As for how it would harm society. Marriage is the foundation stone of the family unit which is the cornerstone of society (in many ways, one of the most important of which is also the raising and education of children). This is not something that should be tampered with lightly, on a whim.

That's your opinion which is probably influenced by your religious beliefs. Give me a secular argument as to why gay marriage should be treated any differently than heterosexual marriage or how gay marriage has a negative impact on a family unit.

You are the one turning this into a religious argument, not me. I haven't referred to religion a single time in this discussion. Why are you obsessed with religion?

Because I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not in some way based upon religious dogma. Even the suggestion that homosexuality is immoral or leads to the downfall of society is religious in nature. It is religion that has forced this belief of homosexual immorality into people's brains. There is simply no secular argument to make against gay marriage and THAT'S why the courts keep deciding in favor of gay rights.

 

[Artevelde]

Art – You totally lost me here as I have no idea what you’re talking about. When did I say that I want to do away with social norms and constraints?

My argument was that social norms should NOT be maintained and regulated by the government, as they would in a Communist setup. I think individuals should have the freedom to choose. If their wild choices means that they get alienated from whatever culture they’re a part of – so be it. I just don’t think that the choice itself should be made illegal if it’s not threatening another individuals rights or property. See the difference?

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

Art – Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from infringing on my rights, such as burglary, or assault.

However, as for things that don’t infringe on the rights and property of others – such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect – these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals.





.
.
.

There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.

 

[BluePhantom]

According to your reasoning, public nudity should be allowed.

Do you believe people should be allowed to walk down the street naked? Why or why not?

It's legal in San Francisco. So long as they put a towel on a public chair they are using they are free to walk around nude if they wish....and they do

So you can walk around nude in the streets of San Francisco? I don't think so. But why don't you go ahead and try.

No problem:

Public nudists in San Francisco will have to cover up in certain situations under legislation given unanimous initial approval Tuesday by the Board of Supervisors.

The proposal, introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener, prohibits public nudity in restaurants and outlaws sitting on benches or other public seating in the city without placing clothing or other material atop the seat first.

In other words it's perfectly fine to walk around nude as long as you are not in a restaurant and you must put a towel down on a public seat. Other than that you are good to go.

San Francisco Supes Approve Public Nudity Restrictions « CBS San Francisco

Public nudity in San francisco is legal

 

[KevinWestern]

It is a whim. You point it out yourself by writing that they are already living together. Obviously they are, so what?

And government benefits as an argument? Please. Personally, I don't see why there should be any government benefits to being married.

So what? They should be able to live together with full legal and religious rights accorded. I know this will come as a total shock to you, but some among them are christians, and feel they are living in sin.

It may come as a shock to you, but I know quite a few homosexual people, including friends of mine.

That being said, how come you are so dumb that you don't realize that people who contract a civil marriage will still not be married religiously and therefore will still not be married as Christians (or other religions for that matter). And why do you bring in religious marriage in a discussion about civil marriage? Are you too ignorant to differentiate between the two?

Well, just to set the record straight (I know it’s off topic), but there are many Christian Churches who will marry same-sex couples.

If you're gay and a member of a church that does NOT marry same-sex, well too bad, it’s up to the individual to choose what private organizations that wish to be a part of.

.
.

 

[Artevelde]

Go read the polls again. It's actually the majority of the nation who want to change this social norm.



That's your opinion which is probably influenced by your religious beliefs. Give me a secular argument as to why gay marriage should be treated any differently than heterosexual marriage or how gay marriage has a negative impact on a family unit.

You are the one turning this into a religious argument, not me. I haven't referred to religion a single time in this discussion. Why are you obsessed with religion?

Because I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not in some way based upon religious dogma. Even the suggestion that homosexuality is immoral or leads to the downfall of society is religious in nature. It is religion that has forced this belief of homosexual immorality into people's brains. There is simply no secular argument to make against gay marriage and THAT'S why the courts keep deciding in favor of gay rights.

Again, you are the one bringing religion into this, not me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I tend to look at things that are so fundamental as marriage in a bit broader perspective. 47% of the California electorate translates into a very tiny fraction of the US population and an almost meaningless spat of global society.

What, because extrapolation is against your personal belief system?

I know you are too stupid to grasp this, but "extrapolation" is not a democratic process.

Art, you fuckin' meathead, listen up! Your opinion is not the basis of law. The Constitution is: got that, meathead?

(now talking normally) 47% is a very, very, very signficant minority, which in itself on this issue informs the future. Because the great majority (MAJORITY) of the forty and younger generations favor universal marriage, as their numbers grow larger as your generation dies off, the likliness of universal marriage extrapolates into an almost certainty.

 

[KevinWestern]

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

Art – Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from infringing on my rights, such as burglary, or assault.

However, as for things that don’t infringe on the rights and property of others – such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect – these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals.





.
.
.

There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.

If same sex individuals are allowed to be recognized as "married" under the law, how is that going to – in any way – infringe on any of your personal rights or freedoms as a citizen of the United States of America?



.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since I lost you, let's try and see if I can find you again.

A society cannot exist without some of its rules being enforced by the state. Mind you, for me society is always much broader than the state and the sphere of the state should be limited. But it has a place nevertheless.

Art – Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from infringing on my rights, such as burglary, or assault.

However, as for things that don’t infringe on the rights and property of others – such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect – these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals.





.
.
.

There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.

Yes, it involves more than one person. And, in this case, both parties want to be married.

As for involving society, I would argue against that. Since the couple in question is probably living together already, changing from living together to married would only effect them. They would receive the benefits the gov't give married couples. But society would be uneffected.

 

[Artevelde]

So what? They should be able to live together with full legal and religious rights accorded. I know this will come as a total shock to you, but some among them are christians, and feel they are living in sin.

It may come as a shock to you, but I know quite a few homosexual people, including friends of mine.

That being said, how come you are so dumb that you don't realize that people who contract a civil marriage will still not be married religiously and therefore will still not be married as Christians (or other religions for that matter). And why do you bring in religious marriage in a discussion about civil marriage? Are you too ignorant to differentiate between the two?

Well, just to set the record straight (I know it’s off topic), but there are many Christian Churches who will marry same-sex couples.

If you're gay and a member of a church that does NOT marry same-sex, well too bad, it’s up to the individual to choose what private organizations that wish to be a part of.

.
.

You know very well that you're talking about a fringe, which calls itself Christian, but wouldn't be recognized as such by the overwhelming majority of the Christian community in the World. As a matter of fact, any Christian would consider somebody making such a mockery of one of the sacraments as far more sinful than somebody living together unmarried.

You really are extremely provincial. You need to try to look outside your own limited backyard a bit more.

 

[Artevelde]

Art – Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from infringing on my rights, such as burglary, or assault.

However, as for things that don’t infringe on the rights and property of others – such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect – these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals.





.
.
.

There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.

Yes, it involves more than one person. And, in this case, both parties want to be married.

As for involving society, I would argue against that. Since the couple in question is probably living together already, changing from living together to married would only effect them. They would receive the benefits the gov't give married couples. But society would be uneffected.

If society would be unaffected by that, then this would mean that marriage is a completely meaningless institution. And there again, you've proven my point.

 

[WinterBorn]

Art – Obviously, there are certain rules that must exist and be enforced by government in order to maintain order within a society. These rules should be things that prevent other individuals from infringing on my rights, such as burglary, or assault.

However, as for things that don’t infringe on the rights and property of others – such as body piercings, two people of the same sex marrying, ect – these sorts of things should NOT be made illegal.

The government should not be in the business of regulating social norms that do not have the potential to directly harm other individuals.





.
.
.

There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.

If same sex individuals are allowed to be recognized as "married" under the law, how is that going to – in any way – infringe on any of your personal rights or freedoms as a citizen of the United States of America?



.

This is the question I have yet to see properly answered.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is a difference between somebody getting a body piercing and getting married. Marriage always involves more than one person and it also involves society.

Yes, it involves more than one person. And, in this case, both parties want to be married.

As for involving society, I would argue against that. Since the couple in question is probably living together already, changing from living together to married would only effect them. They would receive the benefits the gov't give married couples. But society would be uneffected.

If society would be unaffected by that, then this would mean that marriage is a completely meaningless institution. And there again, you've proven my point.

What? lol You are dancing the two-step now.

That society is uneffected by gay marriage does not equate to marriage being a meaningless institution.

Society was not effected when my wife and I married. So was it a meaningless institution already??

Unless you have some reasons society was effected by my marriage or way it would be effected by gays marrying?

 

[BDBoop]

Yes, it involves more than one person. And, in this case, both parties want to be married.

As for involving society, I would argue against that. Since the couple in question is probably living together already, changing from living together to married would only effect them. They would receive the benefits the gov't give married couples. But society would be uneffected.

If society would be unaffected by that, then this would mean that marriage is a completely meaningless institution. And there again, you've proven my point.

What? lol You are dancing the two-step now.

That society is uneffected by gay marriage does not equate to marriage being a meaningless institution.

Society was not effected when my wife and I married. So was it a meaningless institution already??

Unless you have some reasons society was effected by my marriage or way it would be effected by gays marrying?

"He can do the innuendo, he can dance and sing ..." - Name That TUNE!!!

 

[BluePhantom]

You are the one turning this into a religious argument, not me. I haven't referred to religion a single time in this discussion. Why are you obsessed with religion?

Because I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that is not in some way based upon religious dogma. Even the suggestion that homosexuality is immoral or leads to the downfall of society is religious in nature. It is religion that has forced this belief of homosexual immorality into people's brains. There is simply no secular argument to make against gay marriage and THAT'S why the courts keep deciding in favor of gay rights.

Again, you are the one bringing religion into this, not me.

And without a religious argument there is no argument to be made. And since a religious argument is irrelevant in the eyes of the courts then gay marriage must be accepted as legal. There's no other way around it. Now you can personally approve or disapprove all you want, but your personal approval means nothing in regards to what is legal and constitutional.