patrick.net

The Original Bankster says

I'm not religious.

Then what is the basis for your intense feelings about gay couples? And why does "The Original Bankster's website" link to two words that I won't quote here but that seem very important to your vocabulary?

Colombia Professor defends Incest as being the same as homosexuality:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339108/David-Epstein-Homosexuals-want-INCEST-different.html

what these gay rights advocates are doing is brokering power with a significant voting bloc(LGBT) while seriously degrading our legal concept of marriage. The changes will be irreversible and damaging in the extreme.

curious2 says

intense feelings about gay couples?

disagreeing with you is 'intense feelings'?

wth is wrong with liberals? why are they so filled with hate and intolerance?

really getting tired of these assholes.

curious2 says

two words that I won't quote here

you wont quote them but you'll ban them and limit free speech in every imaginable way won't you?

if reality doesn't fit your needs then you can just reengineer it! amirite?

The Original Bankster says

disagreeing with you is 'intense feelings'?

I was referring to your extreme vocabulary, for example "your" website and your comments above. Clearly, these indicate some extreme feelings on your part. Why does the thought of gay couples together arouse you so much?

I own Google Trends now?

American Education Filmstrip for Elementary School kids in the future:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv407daollc

curious2 says

I was referring to your extreme vocabulary, for example "your" website and your comments above. Clearly, these indicate some extreme feelings on your part.

Why does any kind of debate with your insane values provoke silly childish diversionary tactics?

if you talk about gay then youre gay.

this is an interesting value because what it does is INSURE THAT ONLY GAY PEOPLE WILL HAVE A SAY IN THE DISCUSSION, ALLOWING GAYS TO SHAPE THEIR OWN RULE SYSTEM THAT THE REST OF SOCIETY MUST FOLLOW.

what if for instance, I dont believe that being gay is either natural or inherent?

there is much scientific evidence to back up this belief, however it is ruthlessly suppressed by the gay community.

gay is really a psychological side effect of one's attitudes towards family and parents, and is not at all something we are born with(aside from being born into certain familial/social environment).

THUS- to impress these values onto others is destructive.

The issue here is cut and dry. All Americans deserve to have basic civil rights, of which marriage is one of them. Nobody is trying to force anyone to believe as they do or behave as they do. This is an open and shut case and years from now this will be looked back on in the same way that other instances of civil rights were enacted over time.

chanakya4773 says

Simple explination: it prodcues unfit and unwell children. That comes with a large societal cost.

Did you not read my posts ? I suggest reading posts before jumping with answers. I had said that gay couple are equivalent to sibling couple who decide not have their own kid but use donor cell (IVF) or adopt one. So their case is no different than gay couple.

Can you explain why you don't want to legalize their marriage ?

because it simply doesn't exist in society in large enough numbers.

This is not a good explanation for not giving somebody civil rights. large enough number is not a legal explanation. just like there are not large enough number of gay people in Iran :-)

Uhh, you didn't read mine either. I'm fine with same sex incest couples wanting to have the legal right to marriage. I'd also be ok with incestual marriage provided there was no intent to reproduce.

You need to look up the definition of a "protected class" if you want to comment intelligently on the basis for discrimination laws. Again, you don't need to protect something that is so insignificant as to not merit attention or bias against it.

As far as homosexuality being unnatural, that's simply an ideology, not a fact. Check highly social and intelligent species on Earth and you will find it. It's found in nature plenty (no added ingredients, all natural).

-------------------------------------

Other comments made here in the thread:

rimjobs - they are not the exclusive domain of gay couples. You propose to regulate them? Regulate when and what a parent can teach to their child? You are pro large regulating government?

Boomers morals - the boomers are far more conservative than GenX/Y/Next. It's the boomer's children ('boomlets') not the boomers themselves that are making this change happen. (Are you in "the greatest generation" by chance? I could see your complaint if so. Every generation is more inclusive and progressive than the one before it. It's a small small world today with a lot of people in it.)

morality & law - They are linked, but there is also a very defined separation, especially when you start talking about religious morality. "Morals" typically supported by law are anything where an act may harm another citizen or violate another's rights in some way.

------------------------------

Here is what you need to answer:

1) How do two adults of the same sex, doing whatever they want to in private, hurt or harm another? How is it the States, Feds, or your concern at all?

2) Why does any state have the right to deny a same sex couple, the same benefits afforded to any other couple, by marriage? It's pretty clear to most, that it is unconstitutional. Words from the supreme court for the Prop 8 hearings go something like this: "This was struck down by the CA lower courts as unconstitutional. Should we even be reviewing this?"

3) What major damages to society come from allowing gay marriage? Please describe them?

edvard2 says

The issue here is cut and dry. All Americans deserve to have basic civil rights, of which marriage is one of them. Nobody is trying to force anyone to believe as they do or behave as they do. This is an open and shut case and years from now this will be looked back on in the same way that other instances of civil rights were enacted over time.

Spot on.

Queers are irrational psychopaths. Don't even try to debate with a queer. After all, they have problems figuring out which hole is for what.

To sum this up more, American conservatism always loses in the end. This has been the case throughout American history, as a steady route of progress is made, there are always those who drag their feet and might slow things down. But in the end they will always, and have always lost, and they will lose this debate as well. Civil rights is a right for all and gay Americans will be able to marry and live lives like the rest of us shortly.

edvard2 says

The issue here is cut and dry. All Americans deserve to have basic civil rights, of which marriage is one of them. Nobody is trying to force anyone to believe as they do or behave as they do. This is an open and shut case and years from now this will be looked back on in the same way that other instances of civil rights were enacted over time.

OK, so can I marry my cats now? I'd love to be able to claim that Head of Household tax filing status and claim them as dependents.

postbubblesucess says

Queers are irrational psychopaths. Don't even try to debate with a queer. After all, they have problems figuring out which hole is for what.

Ancient man also had this problem and there are huge sets of cave paintings devoted to sexual instruction: the first sex-ed. Some ancient tribes got it close enough, but still wrong, aiming for the belly button.

Before Mommy Daddy and sex-ed told you what your special parts were for you didn't know what it was all about either. Humans aren't born knowing about the sexual act.

Eating isn't just for sustenance.
Sex isn't just for procreation.
Reading isn't just for knowledge.
Speaking isn't just for communication.

As the song goes:

Thank God for mom and dad
For sticking to two together
'Cause we don't know how.

zzyzzx says

edvard2 says

The issue here is cut and dry. All Americans deserve to have basic civil rights, of which marriage is one of them. Nobody is trying to force anyone to believe as they do or behave as they do. This is an open and shut case and years from now this will be looked back on in the same way that other instances of civil rights were enacted over time.

OK, so can I marry my cats now? I'd love to be able to claim that Head of Household tax filing status and claim them as dependents.

Sorry, animals are property. You need to fight for them to be citizens first.

postbubblesucess says

Queers are irrational psychopaths.

Irrational psychopaths are allowed to get married. And gay people aren't any less rational or more psychopathic than other people.

YOU, on the other hand, might be a different story, bragging about your post bubble success (which you can't even spell).

chanakya4773 says

The moment we accept gay marriage, we have accepted as a society that all deviant unions are ok as well. the fact that it has not happened now but will happen in future is not going to change the fact.

The definition of what a deviant union is continues to change throughout time. Interracial marriage was made legal only in 1967. That is VERY recent history.

Don't you get this? You are hung up on what people are doing in the bedroom. I guarantee you there are some heterosexual couples with VERY 'deviant' unions.

In some states a transexuals new sex is legally identified and they are allowed to marry what would have been previously a same sex partner.

Your argument about incest again: Let the incest lovers come out and fight for their right too. It's a progression. I doubt there are many of them out there that would seek this. I also do not think they are easily identifiable as a class needing protection. Maybe someday ... but not today.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

Don't you get this? You are hung up on what people are doing in the bedroom. I guarantee you there are some heterosexual couples with VERY 'deviant' unions.

its not what they are doing in the bedroom. They want to officially declare themselves married and raise kids,be seen as couple in public and get same acceptance at all levels.

I guess if society has decided to accept the natural progression towards incest ...who am i to stop them but they should atleast know what they are signing up for ( legally).

as i showed before, legally they are signing up for incest as well when they sign up for gay marriage.

just because they shut their eyes does not mean, its not a fact.

That boat doesn't float. False argument.

These are not mutually exclusive or bound together in anyway. Society can decide the legality of one thing without also extending the legality of that to something else.

Marriage between heterosexual couples, initially, didn't extend to mixed races. Same will go for homosexual couples not somehow magically extending rights out to other relationships you are concerned about.

You've convinced yourself of these things being related as a hollow protection for your un-comfort.

What's wrong with a gay couple being seen, accepted in public, and raising children? They are not outlawed from adopting, and the couple, whether recognized and given the rights by marriage or not, already exists today.

Edit: gay couples with kids are very much a part of today's society. They are typically accepted in the communities they choose to live in as well.

zzyzzx says

OK, so can I marry my cats now? I'd love to be able to claim that Head of Household tax filing status and claim them as dependents.

If we're going to play that game, then what do you think of the single people who think straight marriage is immoral ( yes, such people do exist) In that case do straight couples have the right to marry?

chanakya4773 says

Do you believe gay couple are same as sibling couple or not ?

That's a silly question. No- Gay couples are not the same as sibling couples. You are trying to equivocate two totally different things that are not in any way remotely similar.

Rew says

These are not mutually exclusive or bound together in anyway. Society can decide the legality of one thing without also extending the legality of that to something else.

Yeah, and in CA they decided against it, though narrowly so. What's your point? I thought we are arguing now based on constitutional rights in the courts, not what the majority wants, and in that respect the courts already acknowledged that they would have to consider other lifestyles as well then.

Let me just say something that really bugs me about this: A lot of people who claim that are against gay marriage claim its because its against their personal morals, or that somehow it will affect society. What a bunch of bullshit. I personally do not really care about someone else's morals or what society thinks of my life and the decisions I choose to make. That's my business and not anyone else's. So as such, its nobody's right to tell others how to lead their lives. Plain and simple.

mell says

Rew says

These are not mutually exclusive or bound together in anyway. Society can decide the legality of one thing without also extending the legality of that to something else.

Yeah, and in CA they decided against it, though narrowly so. What's your point? I thought we are arguing now based on constitutional rights in the courts, not what the majority wants, and in that respect the courts already acknowledged that they would have to consider other lifestyles as well then.

You need to check recent events. Prop 8 was found unconstitutional by CA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

It's being appealed. I'm pretty sure the supreme court may take the ultimate wuss out, and say, "We do not need to rule on this again. CA already said it was unconstitutional for the State."

Marriage is typically a states rights issues anyway ... but it is pretty clear how it is unconstitutional.

chanakya4773 says

looks like you drank too much kool-aid

No. In fact, this issue isn't even worth arguing. Giving civil rights to all Americans is such an obvious and clearly correct thing to do that its a given that those who argue against that notion are wrong, and will continue to be wrong, just as they always have been throughout history.

Rew says

It's being appealed. I'm pretty sure the supreme court may take the ultimate wuss out, and say, "We do not need to rule on this again. CA already said it was unconstitutional for the State."

Yeah, and from the hearings I gleaned that the judges were pondering about how this may have to be extended to other lifestyles and flood the courts. So they see these as similar issues, that's all.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

What's wrong with a gay couple being seen, accepted in public, and raising children?

agreed..Nothing wrong...just like nothing is wrong with sibling couple.

You are very progressive. I salute that.

The issue before the courts, right now, is homosexual marriage. Remember change is generally slow and steady. You are correct, that if gay marriage rights are extended it strengthens a case to be made for other couple types to also have marriage rights. Those civil rights movements will run their course if there is a significant portion of society affected or in that class of people being discriminated against.

So far, doesn't seem like society is ready to jump on the incest band wagon yet. You are ahead of the game there.

('If I eat just one M&M I have to eat the whole bag' arguments are fallacies. You are saying there is a relationship or that things are equivalent when by definition they re not and can and will be treated differently. Again, your view is very egalitarian though.)

chanakya4773 says

mell says

Yeah, and from the hearings I gleaned that the judges were pondering about how this may have to be extended to other lifestyles and flood the courts. So they see these as similar issues, that's all.

we are all ( including judges ) on the same page...except hypocrites who think gay couples are different than sibling couples.

By that logic, are homosexual couples different from heterosexual couples?
Interracial? International/multi-lingual? Thin couples? Fat couples?

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

The issue before the courts, right now, is homosexual marriage. Remember change is generally slow and steady. You are correct, that if gay marriage rights are extended it strengthens a case to be made for other couple types to also have marriage rights. Those civil rights movements will run their course if there is a significant portion of society affected or in that class of people being discriminated against.

So far, doesn't seem like society is ready to

then why are there so many idiots and hypocrites that somehow project that incestual marriage is not a natural progression of gay marriage ?

It confuses me too because homosexual marriage was obviously a natural progression from heterosexual marriage.

Rew says

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much (for consenting adults) IF it is regulated by the government. If the government gets out and rescinds all the regulations around marriage then we would be done long ago. Also you cannot even narrow it down to 2 people only, one person could have multiple marriages at the same time. One more reason for the government to get out completely.

mell says

Rew says

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much (for consenting adults) IF it is regulated by the government. If the government gets out and rescinds all the regulations around marriage then we would be done long ago. Also you cannot even narrow it down to 2 people only, one person could have multiple marriages at the same time. One more reason for the government to get out completely.

This argument basically boils down to : 'you cannot define anything, everything is everything'.

A very zen way to look at life.

Rew says

The issue before the courts, right now, is homosexual marriage. Remember change
is generally slow and steady

I would argue that change is not that slow and steady.

Liberals have been trying to divorce (no pun intended) procreation from marriage for at least 3 decades now and look at the absolute ruin it has done in terms of the skyrocketing out of wedlock birthrate in America. The African American community alone has over 70% of their children being born to single parents AND GUARANTEED POVERTY. The breakdown of the family is the single biggest driver of crime, poverty and ignorance. We were told for years that a "good" single mother (with possible help from an aunt, parent or grandparent) is just as good as raising kids as the traditional nuclear family.

The only reason the State is interested in marriage in the first place (giving tax breaks to parents etc.) is to encourage stable families and procreation and future tax payers. That's all.

So for all of the gay marriage advocates who are trying to draw distinctions between gay marriage, polygamy, incest or whatever - you need to become consistent and let us know if procreation is an issue with marriage or not. If procreation is not an issue with marriage, there is no reason we can't call any human relationship a "marriage" if the people involved desire it.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

It confuses me too because homosexual marriage was obviously a natural progression from heterosexual marriage.

I don't think hetro-sexual behavior was EVER deviant (since civilization started). The progression can only happen from normal to deviancy.

homosexual behaviour/incest..etc were prevalent in old times but were always considered deviant (in some cases legal as well)

Wait, who decided what was deviant when?

The Greeks would argue strongly for what was deviant in their time too. Remember, for good Spartan soldiers, the norm was some man-loving out in the trenches. Having to go back to your wife, and sleep with her to procreate ... was simply duty ... and not considered as strong or as important a relationship as any you would have had with your would be Spartan warrior lovers out in the field.

So where would you like to start counting deviant behavior from exactly?

Homosexuality has been part of human culture for as long as we can comfortably measure. Doesn't seem like it is a deviant behavior but more rather a norm.

Rew says

mell says

Rew says

Guess when we decided marriage was legal, it should really extend to any two persons who want it? I'm good with that argument! Take it to the SCOTUS.

Pretty much (for consenting adults) IF it is regulated by the government. If the government gets out and rescinds all the regulations around marriage then we would be done long ago. Also you cannot even narrow it down to 2 people only, one person could have multiple marriages at the same time. One more reason for the government to get out completely.

This argument basically boils down to : 'you cannot define anything, everything is everything'.

A very zen way to look at life.

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

socal2 says

So for all of the gay marriage advocates who are trying to draw distinctions between gay marriage, polygamy, incest or whatever - you need to become consistent and let us know if procreation is an issue with marriage or not. If procreation is not an issue with marriage, there is no reason we can't call any human relationship a "marriage" if the people involved desire it.

That's true. It depends on how you want to define the purpose of marriage. What do you want to define it as? (It isn't procreation, because 50 year olds readily marry one another, with no intent of having children.)

How about simply: a unique life bond between two people with the intent to strengthen and care for one another, as such caring benefits and strengthens society as well.

If you want to argue for more people, dogs, cats, staplers to be included ... ok ... but you may have to wait a bit until the rest of society catches up to your all inclusive vision.

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

Rew says

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

(WAIT A MINUTE: incestual couples are afforded this right already!)

Rew says

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

This should go into a personal contract between the two partners that they can carry with them when needed or that can be looked up by medical record or domestic partnership registration or any similar means. Heterosexual married couples should not have that right in the first place just because they are married.

mell says

Rew says

mell says

Everything zen ;) Another takeaway is that governments best regulate only things that hurt someone else or infringe on someone else's liberty but otherwise get out of all so-called "positive-discrimination" laws.

So when the gay partner turns up at the hospital and is turned away from visitation rights, because they are not a relative or married, were they wronged?

This should go into a personal contract between the two partners that they can carry with them when needed or that can be looked up by medical record or domestic partnership registration or any similar means. Heterosexual married couples should not have that right in the first place just because they are married.

Call it whatever the heck you want, and regulate it however, as long as it affords every single right a heterosexual couple receives to a homosexual couple and is viewed as equitable in eyes of law and citizenry.

chanakya4773 says

Rew says

Society can decide the legality of one thing without also extending the legality of that to something else.

How do they do that ? how exactly will you deny rights to sibling couples while giving it to gay couple..

Do you believe gay couple are same as sibling couple or not ?

You do it like this: "Are you of blood relation and if so by what degree?" You want to get really big-brother about it: you do a simple genetic test. This is the "how".

I do not believe gay couples are the same as sibling couples just like I do not believe heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples. They are different.

The question is should homosexual couples and heterosexual couples be afforded the same rights of marriage?

Women and men, races, etc. all different : but seen as equal in law and rights. If you pretend to claim that my belief the women/men/races are different makes me bigoted or discriminatory you are wrong. You would have to accuse me of showing prejudicial treatment of one of the groups. Discrimination is about action and treating things differently.

Giving rights to one group doesn't mean you MUST give rights to another. We do not allow felons to vote or own a firearm. We stripped them of those rights and they are no longer equal under the eyes of the law and treatment. We make choices like this.

So...
- You either support the right of gay marriage or you do not.
- You support the right of incest marriage or not.
- You support the right of bestial marriage or not.
- You support the right of polygamy or not.
- You support the right of heterosexual marriage or not.

Accepting one does not mean you must accept them all. They are not equivalent but they are related. If at their basis they are found to be deserving the same treatment under the eyes of the law, then they are. The courts and people decide it and then it becomes so.