The costs of gay marriage

[One Brow]

man, our language used to be so clear before intellectuals invented a lot of stupid words. Thinking it was their privilege to reshape mankind.

That was a clarity of ignorance.

 

[One Brow]

Specifics please. Why is Colton a bigot?

colton has a particular bigoted belief regarding gay marriage, in that he wishes to create a distinction in name which has no functional or practical purpose.

 

[colton]

Personally, I cannot see where the bigotry, odiousness, or hurtfulness lies in my train of logic: (a) homosexual and heterosexual relationships are different on a fundamental level. Biologically this cannot be argued. Legally it also cannot be argued, because countless laws about marriages have underlying heterosexual assumptions. (See my first post in the thread for two examples regarding annulling marriages and granting divorces. Other examples abound.) (b) Therefore different words should be used to describe the different relationships.

Biologically, in terms of sexual behavior, less than 5% of the activity, representing one particular act, performed by a heterosexual couple are not available to a homosexual couple (if you are doing it right).

Biologically, in terms of DNA, humans and chimps are 95% similar.(*) But that remaining 5% is pretty darn significant, wouldn't you say?

But anyway, I'm bowing out of this discussion. I will simply note to conclude that in your response you didn't point out any bigotry, odiousness, or hurtfulness on my train of logic.

(*) Or so it's been reported. I don't know the accuracy of the number, but that's not vital to my point.

 

[One Brow]

Fixed.

Answer. Because it's different.

Every marriage is different from any other marriage. What the relevant difference that requires a different name for this one category.

 

[Stoked]

No Reply to Roacho's posts?

C'mon fellas, don't act like it never existed.

I truly didn't see it.

One particular part is disagree with is where he talks about marrying a woman and not having to worry about another man "doing unto her" and how that with the adoption of women's rights it does not seem right anymore either.

Well it is right. That is the point of marriage! It is also very true that the wife can say the same thing. That she should not worry about another woman "doing unto him" because he is now hers.

In a sense I belong to my wife and she belongs to me. I do not see that as holding her back and denying womans right since I, a man, am and should be held to the exact same standard.

I do agree on his opinion on religion. It should not be forced on others so I am for gay marriage. It should be allowed. Immediately. However, I often see the flip side of that. I am seeing non-religion being forced on religious people left and right.

For example: 5 minutes of silence every school morning to quietly do what you wish. If that is taking a 5 minute cat nap, texting your gf, praying, picking your nose, reading the bible...whatever and yet it is presented as pushing religion on other and that is poppycock! Absolute poppycock!

So yes religion should not be pushed on others but non religion should not be pushed on others either. That is what I see happening.

 

[Stoked]

How unsurprising you try to disguise your failure to produce an argument with humor.

How unsurprising that you try to disguise your failure to answer a question with spin.

That is all this thread is. Spin. You claim otherwise and I do not believe you. Simple as that.

I see no honest effort behind your posts so i will treat them as not worth an honest effort. When you do post something I think is sincere I have shown a willingness to answer and talk. If suddenly that has changed perhaps a "why?" is in order...well now you know.

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

It seems that all of those who oppose gay marrige in this debate hold firm to a few core concepts:

-That no matter how you slice it, gay marriage would never be on equal footing because it's not a marraige between a man and a woman.

-When I've used my slavery comparisons, I've had more than one poster point out that there are no inherent differences between a white and a black person, yet there are obvious differences between a gay and a straight marriage.

-That if you think that someone is a biggot because they are against gay marriage, then you yourself are a biggot for judging them on their beliefs.

My thoughts on those 3 points:

-Of course gay marriage would be different than traditional marriage, but we live in a world where we already consider some straight marriages to be less than others. A perfect example would be those of you who were married in an LDS temple, or later had your marriage sealed in the temple. While you may not openly judge me or anybody else who was not married in the temple, you still believe in your doctrine that tells you that being sealed in the temple will seal you as man and wife for all eternity. Obviously, those of us who don't enter into the same type of marriage, do not get the same benefit. My point is not to bring up the debate of temple marriage vs non-temple marriage, it's simply to illustrate that you are going to see my marriage as something quite different from your own. While those differences may exist between us, we are still able to treat each other with respect despite our differences. I see no reason why this type of behavior couldn't exist between anybody in a straight marriage vs anybody in a gay one.

-I recognize the validity when somebody says my slavery argument is not 100% on point due to the fact that we know there are not differences between blacks and whites with the exception of skin color. I also agree with them when they point out that gay marriage falls short of our standard of having a man and a woman in the relationship. But while there are obvious differences in gay marriage, I believe it sets a bad precedent when we agrue against something on the platform that it is "different" from what is already practiced/accepted. Women are inherently different than men, but that doesn't mean they should be on lower footing. The different argument was brought forth when women fought for the right to vote, the right to for equal jobs, etc. "Different" is not a reason to deny a human basic human rights. What we are doing when we use this argument is telling our future generations that you can have all the civil liberties that you deserve as a human as long as you're not "different" from what we approve of as the norm.

-I see the irony in somebody who is for gay marriage calling somebody a biggot when they are in favor of traditional marriage. It's a slippery slope. Time has shown us that those who argued against equality for women were indeed biggots. The same can be said for those against desegregation, and so on. History definitely tends to favor those who were progessive thinkers and at the forefront of any civil rights movement. It's not really my call, or your call on how those people are seen. The benefit of time seems to be the ultimate judge.

I certainly see where those who are bound and determined to defend traditional marriage are coming from. Years ago, I felt exactly the same way. However, as time went by I started to look more at the big picture in an effort to try and understand the opposite point of view. It led me to believe that even if I don't approve of the gay lifestyle, it's not my job to judge it, or to try and keep them from having the same rights as me. For my own personal belief system, I feel the most appropriate thing to do is live and let live- within reason. Obviously, child molesters, wife beaters, etc. are criminals and should be treated as such. I've just decided that I'm not the authority on what 2 consenting adults want to do, even if that means letting gays legally be married.

 

[One Brow]

Links? As far as you have shown, a few instances of racism happened in New York one year.

That's just one study. If you really want to read more studies, more analyses, etc., there's a world of scholarship out there. Either you care or you don't. I done enough of your homework for one thread.

I understand this, and as far as I'm concerned does not change anything in what I stated, and adds nothing to the point.

OK. I just want to make sure you were aware there was more than just looking at the effects of a criminal record.

They do use data from the other teams. Specifically when they talk about when candidates are pushed down or up for different jobs than what they applied for it uses data from the other teams which muddies the water. Either use all of the data all the time, or some of the data some of the time, not back and forth.

No, that was data from Team 1 and Team 2. You may it hard to believe, but they manage to track not only whether they were offered a job, but which job they were offered and the job for which they applied, without their heads exploding.

So you will discount my life studies as worthless, but will give credence to a pretend job searcher because it's part of a study, or because it fits your needs better?

Not being data does not make something worthless. I give credence to life stories/anecdotes because they help me understand why people think they way they do. For example, your story told me that you think since you life and the life of people around you has struggles, that other people who complain about the additional struggles placed upon them need to behave more like you and your friends. As long as the deck is stacked in your favor, other players just need to play better poker.

(but implied)

How so?

(but race of person to train was)

Yes, the race of all three applicants was described in the anecdote starting on page 4, since the effects of race on job applicants was the focus of the study.

Nice try, race of those hiring is mentioned in the report.

Quote it, then.

Also to be clear, I don't think it is as huge as you make it out to be.

Based on what evidence?

Could it be you are the one projecting?

I'm starting to think I am projecting what I see in me onto you.

Because my friend, then you could see how much of a two way street these racial tendencies are.

Your ignorance is profound. One of the more well-known, studied phenomena is the tendency for many black people who have offered an opportunity to decide that they are "one of the good ones". Hence, men who benefited from affirmative action, such as Clarence Thomas, reject the process for the next generation. Black managers don't want to be seen by their district managers as bringing down the business, so they are even more careful to hire white people, and ride their few black employees much harder. The two-way street you imagine comes from your ignorance and fear.

You just might see that black hiring managers will tend to be more comfortable with the black applicants and hire them more often than an applicant of another race all things being equal.

*You* might, but the reality is otherwise.

I could go into more detail, but that should be enough to give a normal person an understanding of what I mean. Let me know if you need more filler words or something.

Please. You're echoing the point of view I can see in every mainstream pundit, every news channel, documentaries, movies, TV programs, political speeches, etc. There is no mystery to it, and little truth.

Yes, when you say something stupid, it sounds stupid,

It is what it is, whether I call it that or not. As I said, I'm not doing more of your homework for you. I no longer think you care enough to learn the truth.

Let me explain it to you as I would to any rational circle thinking adult.

You would need to follow that up with a rational argument.

" Okay Biff, now if every single black hiring manager gave the black applicants a call back that would only require from the two teams for there to be 23 out of over 500 hiring managers to be black"

Really, every black manager encountered can offer a job to 100% of the black applicants who walk through his door? This is the "rational" position you care to throw out? Or, you mean by pure coincidence, every black applicant in the survey, leaving out the dozens/hundreds of other applicants who would not have been in the survey? Your position is fundamentally irrational and clearly not well thought-out.

So you completely did not get what my point was,

In all honesty, I never expected you to make such claim. I clearly have been projecting onto you qualities you do not posses.

In a controlled environment. What happens when they get out there in live situations? id these applicants train with the Marines for years ...

What happens is that black/Latino people deal with white people every day if they go to a school like Rutgers, so they don't have any greater degree of disease that can't be overcome by training.

However, it's interesting that you have to think Marine training is needed to deal with people from a different race and be at ease. Very interesting indeed.

... use it as your main backup as to why you think the way you think.

Again, there are decades of research and a whole slew of studies in different locations using different methodologies.

That's rich. Give me moar.

I've cast enough pearl. Go root if you need more.

So anyone who sees those same actions and yet does not perceive them the same way you do, must have their head buried in the sand? Genius!

Of course everyone perceives them differently, and yes, if you never have to confront the difficulties of privilege being used against you, you have to deliberately raise your head from the sand to see it.

And the super sensitive think everyone is a jerk and out to get them.

You have confused privilege and persecution.

Not quite. That would be do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Not really do whatever others want you to do so you don't offend them.

So, you want to be belittled, marginalized, and ignored?

Oh, I was translating what you were saying.

YOu did it badly.

Meh. Sometimes I feel like you are trying to take my Vizzini gig and show people your dizzying intellect and reason circles around them.
It offends me, I am the fake Vizzini, not you.

I cede you the position. I'm still serious that I think you don't want to say hurtful things.

As to the last line... I am definitely too lazy to go through and read your posts again to point out ...

So far, attempts to point it out have been met by my acting just like I say other people should. My confusion has been about why this was not obvious.

 

[One Brow]

But anyway, I'm bowing out of this discussion. I will simply note to conclude that in your response you didn't point out any bigotry, odiousness, or hurtfulness on my train of logic.

I'm happy to rectify. Insisting a a different name for the same thing is a bigoted position. To make such a distinction for arbitrary, non-functional reasons is odious. That this distinction otherizes people is hurtful.

 

[One Brow]

I see no honest effort behind your posts ...

OK.

 

[moevillini]

thanks jazzman12, nicely written post

I'd like to add that I wish we could separate out the discussion of DOMA from the rest of this discussion. As I see it, the cultural/religious/moral aspects of the discussion form the more intangible aspects of the questions of acceptance of "gay marriage" - and whether it's called this or that and all of those more semantic arguments. But there are tangible effects too, and those are what I'm more interested in equalizing right now. Such as this:

Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.

Clinton and key legislators have changed their positions and advocated DOMA's repeal. The Obama administration announced in 2011 that it had determined that section 3 was unconstitutional and, though it would continue to enforce the law, it would no longer defend it in court. In response, the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives instructed the House General Counsel to defend the law in place of the Department of Justice (DOJ)

Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on issues including bankruptcy, public employee benefits, estate taxes, and immigration. The U.S. Supreme Court has heard an appeal in one of those cases, United States v. Windsor, with oral arguments on March 27, 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

In effect, the current law punishes those who are not in a traditional marriage as defined by DOMA. I do not think people should be punished for having a different life-style.

Or put a little differently, I don't think someone should be rewarded just because they have the physical ability to at least pretend to perform a sex act in a certain way. Those of you who insist that DOMA should remain in force essentially want to reward people for this ability and punish those who can't at least pretend to have this ability.

Whether or not they really have the ability is meaningless....

that doesn't make much sense to me

I DON'T THINK SOMEONE SHOULD BE REWARDED JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO AT LEAST PRETEND TO PERFORM A SEX ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY.

And that's what the issue seems to boil down to when you strip away all the other stuff.

 

[Stoked]

One argument that I hear is that it is about defending the sanctity of marriage. I think that is a very noble goal and one that should be given more support. However I do not think preventing gay marriage does that. I think it weakens it. I think you do better to protect marraige thru other means. Perhaps a marriage course before marriage, a waiting period to be divorced perhaps. Doing away with the drive thru wedding service...

Protecting marriage is great. There are just better ways to do it.