quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life).

---

quote:

---

Gay people aren't promiscuous.

Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.
Median Reported Sex Partners

* straight men: 6
* gay men: 6
* straight women: 6
* gay women: 6

* 45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)
* 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)

It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).

---

I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.

So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.

His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I seriously doubt it - or if this is part of the argument, it's not the central part. Most modern Christians are perfectly fine with "enjoyable" sex - as long as it occurs between husband and wife. You're arguing to a many-years-past issue.

His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

---

This thread was only started an hour ago, and I'm responding to MtM's argument as written, so I don't see how I can be arguing a "many-years-past issue".

At any rate, the only clue from MtM's stated dichotomy about what makes sex "moral" is that it's apparently unlike the other kind, which is a plaything to be enjoyed when you want to. From this I can only guess that moral sex is very workmanlike (or workwomanlike, if that suits your gender better) and done only at times of great inconvenience and/or minimum sexual desire (i.e. whenever you don't want to, to paraphrase MtM). As I said, I'm only working with the information MtM chose to provide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people

---

quote:

---

There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like

---

quote:

---

So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing?

---

quote:

---

They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality

---

quote:

---

... in the face of the established, traditional morality

---

quote:

---

this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship

---

quote:

---

On a Gay Pride Parade he attended: "I stumbled on one in Toronto one time with my wife. We watched this. There were men in speedos grinding and doing things, okay, to each other. I just said, that's not right."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I won't even try to start this anywhere but Dead Nags.

Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people (otherwise the Net would not be the cesspit of porn that it is).

Should the answer be "no"? Bottom line, the answer needs to be left to the individual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then society must step in and define what is "normal", i.e. what it will not tolerate as acceptable behavior.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)

Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!). So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing? They are celebrating and pushing their sexual immorality in the face of the established, traditional morality: this is manifestly so, because most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship (i.e a "marriage" intended for life). The entire facade of GLBT is dishonest. If we extended their rallies and parades to include ALL sexually immoral people (like that annual parade in Germany does), the issue would be exposed for what it truly is: a push to break down society's barriers to sexual excess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So each one of us must decide where our line in the sand is. The Law may be redefined to allow all manner of sexual behavior without criminal or even civil repurcussions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But we live in the Age of Free Will: all the restraints are being removed a piece and barrier at a time. It seems fated to be thus. And you, alone, must stand for something besides being part of some advocacy group, regardless which one it is….

---

Whatever.
 

---

Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Hmmm. Maybe I get it now, since

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married. ... Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Also, it actually isn't up to the individual (unless we're talking really lonely people), because last time I checked, it took a minimum of two to produce a sexual experience.

---

I believe this is called the O'Donnell Rule. Almost no one strictly observes this.

---

True enough: where needs must, and all that . . . But hands up: how many seek out the "on-your-own" kind in preference to the "with-a-partner" kind?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy:
This is interesting as I just finished reading an article by the folks at the OKCupid dating site, which aggregated data from over 600,000 people who use their site. The whole thing is here and has lots of good data and pretty interesting charts for you visual learners, but here's what I think is petinent to Merlin's generalization:

quote:

---

Gay people aren't promiscuous.

Another common myth about gay people is that they sleep around, but the statistical reality is that gay people as a group aren't any more slutty than straights.
Median Reported Sex Partners

* straight men: 6
* gay men: 6
* straight women: 6
* gay women: 6

* 45% of gay people have had 5 or fewer partners (vs. 44% for straights)
* 98% of gay people have had 20 or fewer partners (vs. 99% for straights)

It turns out that a tiny fraction of gays have single-handedly two-handedly created the public image of gay sexual recklessness—in fact we found that just 2% of gay people have had 23% of the total reported gay sex, which is pretty crazy.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back to perceived differences in what defines sexual attraction GROUPS. This a fallacy. There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like (provided I get permission from the whomsoever – at least that is still in place!).

---

I think this gets to the heart of MtM's rant. Under this view sex can be divided into two categories: enjoyable sex (which is immoral) and moral sex (which is apparently unenjoyable, if not downright unpleasant). While this horror at the thought of sensual enjoyment is a common thread in many strains of Christianity, it isn't the necessary component some treat it as.

So, how much of a sense of play does it take for sex to become immoral? This sort of question is similar to asking how many lifetime sex partners are too many. The 'correct' answer is usually just slightly more than however much/many the person asking the question has had.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not sure what's supposed to be concealed behind the "façade" of the GBLT movement. So far the accusation seems to be that they're defying the sexual norms of society in pursuit of their secret agenda of . . . defying the sexual norms of society.

I don't think "façade" means what MtM thinks it does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?

Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.

So the facade is benign, where no such quality exists with the advocates. Their agenda is rebellion. And as we know, any rebellion includes a large proportion of those who join simply for the rush of being rebellious. I would include in this group the many hetero friends of GLBTs, who love a good cause to join. This isn't de facto a bad thing: but it is hard to separate out the merely rebellious (for its own sake) from those sincerely fighting for needed change....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is sex a plaything? Obviously the answer is "yes" for most people

---

Unsubstantiated claim. It's not so obvious to me. You start out with this unprovable claim and attempt to build some kind of argument on it.

---

quote:

---

There are really only TWO groups; those that treat sex morally, and those that treat it as MY plaything, and I should be free to use it whenever and with whomsoever I like

quote:

---

That's right ... the world is black and white and there are no shades of gray.

---

---

quote:

---

So when a so-called Gay Pride parade/rally is held, what are the vast majority of participants/advocates really doing?

quote:

---

Ooh. I'm impressed with the linking together of so obviously related logically following concepts. I'm guessing that the gay pride participants can't be in the group that have ethics about sex.

---

---

quote:

---

...most do not limit their sexual play to a monogomous relationship

quote:

---

Facts and references, sir. And while you're at it, make sure you compare apples to apples and include the statistics about fidelity of opposite sex couples as well.

Another blowhard rant without any basis in facts or experience.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
So Merlin: are you claiming here that it's the push for marriage that's the "facade"?

Or are you referring to gay rights in general? What's the issue, exactly?

---

Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous! You could just as easily segregate society into "special" groups (minorities) for recognition under the law for a limitless number of things. Anyone who can't see this slippery slope is already sliding down it....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...
His issue seems to be the usual one - that gay people are all promiscuous. He says so outright, in fact. And, of course, that gay sex is immoral in its own right....

---

You went and changed my "vast majority" into ALL. I did not say that at all, much less "outright". I also did not say that gay sex is immoral: I clearly stated that immorality is promiscuity, period, end of discussion. The same definition of moral sex ought to apply regardless of gender attraction. (I will not speak to the plethora of dogmatic, religious approaches to the thorny issue of homosexuality, as an attraction, being regarded as a sin if acted upon....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:


...

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...Here's the problem with the whole sexual revolution today: it is focused on DIFFERENCES in sexual expression, where those are merely perceived and not actual.

---

Huh? What on earth does this mean? Are you claiming there's no real difference at all among the ways different people -- of different genders, different cultures, different hang-ups, different desires, etc. -- express their sexuality? You lost me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

quote:

---

Gee, and here's silly me thinking it was all about treating citizens alike under the Constitution.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Alright, let's assume for arguement's sake that's true. At what point does society have the duty and the right to impose limitations on GLBT?

quote:

---

The point at which someone is being forced, exploited, or victimized.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The line in the sand is, "Only consenting adults". (Obviously, a twisted, pedophile segment don't agree to that line in the sand.)

quote:

---

1. Define "sexual excess." Are we talking specific sexual practices? Number of times per day, week, or month? Are we talking about public displays? What are you talking about?

---

---

quote:

---

2. I agree that there are serious problems with categorizing people into groups by their sexual preferences. In fact, there's a problem with categorizing people, period. For one thing, it seems to render the process of dehumanizing certain people and denying them basic rights of citizenship much easier.

---

quote:

---

3. I don't agree that gay pride parades or demos are all about pushing sexual immorality in "people's" (by which I take it you mean heterosexuals, which is a telling distinction in and of itself) faces.

---

quote:

---

Especially as a hefty percentage of participants and attendees are likely to be non-heteros themselves. Rather, they are efforts to make visible what some parts of society wish to make invisible. Or wish to make disappear.

---

quote:

---

4. As already noted by Spiffy, most people tend eventually to settle into monogamous relationships, many after a certain amount of youthful experimentation.

---

quote:

---

Do you seriously contemplate a time when sex between adults and children, parents & offspring, siblings, humans & members of other species, etc. will be permitted? And that in this new age of sexual laissez-faire, we will all be compelled to define what is and isn't OK for ourselves? Will this be with or without any reference to our own personal inclinations?

I think your scenario is unlikely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Hmmm. Maybe I get it now, since

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So-called GLBT advocacy is all about what is sexually attractive: the assumption is that any GLBT expression is okeedokee.

---

Is this what you're getting at? Is this the "facade" you're talking about?

Well, you're wrong, on two counts. First, as I've written here lately, I'm emotionally attracted to members of my own sex; I can't seem to "fall in love" with people of the opposite gender. I never have, not even once, not even the slightest.

It's not, for me, about "what is sexually attractive" - not really. So think about how that fits into your statement above. Most gay people, for your information, happen to be attracted (in whatever way) to members of our own gender - and by far most of us want a permanent relationship. A partner. I've never met a gay person who didn't want this, as a matter of fact.

---

quote:

---

Second, it's not true that "any GLBT expression is okeedokee" - at least, it's not any more true for GLBT than for heterosexuals. Really, heteroseuxals do their own share of grinding in various situations; see some of these listed above. It would be a mistake for me to assume that ALL heterosexuals grind in public, though; that's the very mistake you're making here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
Gee, I do hope that Merlin will return to respond to the fallout from his bomb.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Hmmmm... in the "good old days" when gays were in the closet and marriage ruled the land, the wife was the husband's plaything to be used however he wanted (and he didn't need permission!) Until the 1950s women legally belonged to men once they were married. ... Ahhh.. yes. The good old days of traditional morality. ...

---

I hear things are still that way in Utah.

---

Rossy, you never disappoint me The "Moral Majority" of Utah (the mainline LDS church, Mormons all), look on the FLDS minority the same way. I am sure the Media has skewed our perceptions of those who live even amongst us as our very neighbors....
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Paladino is a complete disaster. American politics in general is a complete disaster at the moment, though.

(Oh, Merlin? Where ARE you? It's not NICE or POLITE to dump a complaint thread someplace and never return to deal with it again, you know....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I am simply saying that sex is either engaged in morally or immorally, . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The trouble with the GLBT advocacy movement is that it is pushing for special recognition. This is pushing too hard too fast. It is impatient. I can see why anyone who feels marginalized and victimized would want the change NOW. But this isn't the way to go about it. Change happens only as fast as the majority give way. And fairness across the spectrum is the only way that the majority are going to give ground on this.

---

quote:

---

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curious Kitten:
This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

---

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[qb] "You" are not being well-served by the Media in your cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That the GLBT component of society gets understood via the Media is only to be expected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And the Media does not serve up the mundane masses, only the exceptional, sensationalized minority: the very group, in this case, that pisses off the "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

---

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curious Kitten:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The laws, as they stand, protect EVERYONE equally. As applied, no they do not. And that's where the litigation will force the change, one case at a time; one victory at a time. GLBTs can cohabit in the modern world (USA and the "West"); it isn't easy for them, still, but the climate of change is already well under way - the momentum is still building. We don't require specially recognized minority groups: legally recognized minorities are a huge step in the wrong direction. (that's actually a different subject)

---

This is a pond difference but when I was a secondary school section 28 was still a valid piece of law as a result gay safe sex isn't taught as part of sex ed and support for victims of homophobic bullying was severly limited depending on the LEA and school's interpertation of section 28. The laws are not equal and protection from discrimination due to sexual orientation should be a right for every human being.

Curious Kitten

---

quote:

---

Originaly posted by leo

All bullying was dealt with if it came to light. Admittedly, some colleagues weren't clued up about homophobic bullying but they tended to be the ones who weren't clued up about anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Merlin, you are repeating your ignorant rant. Why not slow down and answer the questions we are putting to you? like the above?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
To be clear: my "rant" is focused only on sexual immorality: which I assert is the same no matter what your gender attraction happens to be.

---

quote:

---

If it wasn't so hot and crowded, I'd probably still go. But these days I'm content to watch it on TV with a beer in my hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Likewise, it is a fallacy (slippery slope) to assume that, as homosexual relationships gradually gain acceptance among the general population, other kinds of sexual practices, currently considered unacceptable, will also gradually gain acceptance.

---

erm...actually this may be true. In Britain now that the age of consent has been reduced to 16 through the highly publicised campaignings of people like Peter Tatchell, we are having to listen to his assertion that the age of consent should lowered to 14.

---

"Assertion" is a strange word to use for someone expressing his opinion, and the rest of your post is similarly odd.

Tatchell (along with many other people) has long been a campaigner for a general reduction in the age of consent to 14, in line with much of Europe - this isn't some sort of twisted salami tactic to allow him to sleep with 3yos, and your reference to paedophiles is both irrelevant and thoroughly sickening. In fact, when the subject comes up, it's almost invariably with the condition that people over a certain age (usually 18 or 21) would still be committing an offence if they slept with someone under the age of 16, which blows your idea of a Dirty Old Man's Chartet out of the water.

Slippery Slope isn't always a formal logical fallacy, but unless you can provide evidence of a necessary progression from A to B to C, it remains a weak and flawed argument.
 

---

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 
We start out with an incoherent rant about GLBT people being intrinsically sexually immoral and we proceed swiftly to the pedophile insinuation.

Par for the course.
 

---

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
Tatchell aside, I very much doubt that the vast majority of gay people want the age of consent lowering any further. And of course there are straight people who want the hetero age lowered, but one loud-mouthed straight person who thinks that sex with 14-year-old (or 12, or 10) girls should be legal isn't misrepresented as a mass movement among heterosexuals. This is, however, symptomatic of the problems of belonging to a minority group: you get criticised for what one person says because it's assumed that that is what the group as a whole, and everyone in it, wants.

For me the most important thing is that the age of consent is equal for gay and straight people. I think 16 is ok; I'd be happy with 17 or 18 provided that it was equal, because having different ages signifies that one is better than the other. It's a bit like allowing men to vote at one age and women having to be older.

Leo: I appreciate that you may have been a clued up teacher. Lots of teachers aren't or weren't. Even though section 28 didn't apply to schools but to LEAs, many schools avoided discussing sexuality because teachers didn't really understand the legislation so played it safe. I remember in about 1996 in a secondary school class my biology teacher was asked a perfectly sensible question about safer gay sex in a sex ed class, and said that she couldn't answer any questions on gay sex because of section 28, and quickly changed the subject. It also seemed that other teachers thought they could be as nasty about homosexuality as they liked because section 28 said so. I remember a lengthy and completely unprovoked tirade from a maths teacher about Pythagoras' sexuality at the start of a lesson about his theorem!
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 
Yup, I too get fed up with the 'all gays are promiscuous/gays are paeophiles/gays are all out to prove some media point' rubbish.

Here I am, part of the LGBT community.

Rather than try to sleep with every woman that moves, I'm in one long term happy monogamous relationship, just like just about every other person on the LGBT community I know.

Rather than being a predator, I'm a school Governor with responsibility for child protection and safeguarding issues, a national level campaigner for child safety in domestic violence situations, and a co-writer of national reports on how to safeguard children from harm.
I know plenty of LGBT parents who are splendid, and plenty who work with children in utterly safe and normal ways, just as you would expect any other 'category' of person to do.

As for the gay 'scene', I have friends who go to gay pride events, and friends who don't, and none of them are aggressively awful about it.

So there.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The "facade" is that "Gay Pride" is only about gaining full acceptance by the heterosexual "Moral Majority", i.e. getting equality under the laws. In fact, if they can pull this off, the GLBT will get special-mention laws passed wherever they can. And those special exceptions (protections) are a form of reverse discrimination against the majority in society. This is very, very bad: because if successful, the GLBT will have opened the door to any and sundry other special groups to get similarly "special" (exclusive) laws passed to recognize and protect themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:

Leo: I appreciate that you may have been a clued up teacher. Lots of teachers aren't or weren't. Even though section 28 didn't apply to schools but to LEAs, many schools avoided discussing sexuality because teachers didn't really understand the legislation so played it safe. I remember in about 1996 in a secondary school class my biology teacher was asked a perfectly sensible question about safer gay sex in a sex ed class, and said that she couldn't answer any questions on gay sex because of section 28, and quickly changed the subject. It also seemed that other teachers thought they could be as nasty about homosexuality as they liked because section 28 said so. I remember a lengthy and completely unprovoked tirade from a maths teacher about Pythagoras' sexuality at the start of a lesson about his theorem!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
"Assertion" is a strange word to use for someone expressing his opinion,

---

That's what assertion means, isn't it? To state something you believe is true.
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
You're married, according to your website; was that an effort on your part to obtain "special rights"?

Why is it so hard to believe that gay couples simply want to cease being "strangers before the law"? You and your wife and family are recognized as related; why shouldn't gay families be accorded the same?

And please give some examples of what you think will happen at the end of this "slippery slope"; it's pretty hard to have a discussion about abstractions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

The hardliners of both polar opposites need to be denied. Neither extreme will answer the needs of the "general welfare". The marriage laws need not be changed. And the GLBTs, et al. those advocating for equal recognition under the laws, require the same legal protections and obligations that married people and their families already possess....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Largely, the push for "marriage" is a facade to obtain special laws recognizing and protecting GLBT as a minority group. This is absurd and dangerous, as I already said. There shouldn't even be such a thing as "gay rights". To identify a group of human being based solely on what they find sexually attractive is ludicrous!

---

Is this more or less ludicrous than "religious rights", identifying a group of human beings based solely on their worship practices?

---

quote:

---

The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege. That GLBTs are denied that privilege is not a reason to push for special legislation regarding themselves as some kind of legally recognized minority group. This is what most of the push for "gay marriage" is shooting for.

---

The question then is whether or not the difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship warrants a different legal standing before the law. Note, that I said "legal". The movement towards legal same-sex marriage will not affect a whiff of whether or not a religious community chooses to bless a same-sex relationship. Mormons, Roman Catholics, and other conservative denominations are free to say no if they do not agree in affirming same-sex marriage.

Legally, the courts have come around to say that there is no difference between a same-sex and a different-sex relationship that should necessitate different treatment under the law. Procreation is no longer taken as the defacto definition of a heterosexual relationship. Infertile couples and couples where the wife is past the age of childbearing, are legally married everyday with nary an objection.

Here in Canada, the sky hasn't fallen since same-sex marriage was legalized. My heterosexual couples have all gotten married being unaffected by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Roman Catholic priests hasn't been thrown in prison for exercising their conscience in denying couples a Catholic wedding if it contradicts their beliefs.

Incidentally, my only complaint like some of my other 20 something heterosexual girlfriends is that I can't find a good man. The good ones are either taken or not of my sexual orientation.

[ 14. October 2010, 17:12: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I suspect that only the hard-wired gay guys, who have dozens, scores or even hundreds of partners, are the focus of the media: e "Moral (heterosexual) Majority"....

---

What on earth is a 'hard-wired gay'?

As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For the record: Gay people didn't ask to be singled out as a special group and treated differently based on who we find attractive. Heterosexuals have done that for millenia. All gay people want is legal protections to ensure that doesn't continue.

---

Historically, looking at most societal approaches to homosexuality and its offshoots, we nevertheless find that "marriage" remains a uniquely heterosexual institution.

---

What on earth is an homosexual 'offshoot'?


(and how does one get one, I'm intrigued!
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Don't just be flippant; show some examples of that you mean. What other moral and immoral groups are there? If you come up with "threesomes" as an okay expression of fidelity to "The Other", then we part ways on irreconcilable differences in definition of "sexual morality".

---

Merlin - you seem to me to be failing utterly to explain whatever point it is that you are trying to make. At one point you seem to be saying that straight/gay is a meaningless distinction, and monogamy vs promiscuity is what counts, and the next minute you appear to be saying that gays should be allowed legal recognition of monogamous relationships in the way that straights are.

Is your point essentially that you distrust the 'gay rights' movement because it includes BOTH moralists who are seeking to place faithful gay relationship into a moral context AND immoralists who would destroy the whole concept of sexual morality altogether?

Or is it that human sexual behaviour requires a moral framework for society to function, and that the moral framework we have as a 'given' is to be treated respectfully, because it would be difficult or impossible to vary it to include, say, gay marriage, without making sexual behaviour essentially a matter of personal free choice and legitimising such things as group sex, polyamory, pornography and exploitative sex, which ought to be discouraged? That it is, basically, better to have a traditional moral code which more-or-less works, than to be liberal about sexual morality and find that we have no basis for condemning what may be formally consensual, but which all decent people would say is immoral?

Or are you saying something else?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "right to be married" is not in fact an inalienable right at all. Anything licensed is not a right, it is a privilege.

---

quote:

---

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:


As for 'special' protection, the push for civil partnerships/marriage is about EQUAL rights e.g, if one guy is in hospital, a distant blood-relative can make decisions as 'next of kin' e.g. to turn off life-support, whereas the long-term partner may not even be allowed to visit.
And may not even know when the funeral is, let along be invited.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex. They make the News. ''''Your assertions that GLBTs cannot inherit or even visit in hospitals, or be granted the decency of being informed of funerals, etc., is not the reality as far as the laws, as written, are concerned. But rather, these kinds of treatments, as transmitted through the media (and GLBT propaganda), are examples of bigots behaving as such. The civil courts can be, and are, used to address all such discrimination.

---

quote:

---

]A homosexual man not remotely bisexual is "hard-wired gay". This is far more common with men than women homosexuals. The 30 year-old who was recently tortured by the gang in NY is probably yet another of these: who approach younger men/boys for casual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The chasm lying between the heterosexual majority and the GLBT advocacy is the meaning of "marriage" in the USA. (Ironically, it was a SCOTUS decision in the late 19th century, dealing with polygamous Mormons, which drove the Fed definition of "marriage" to be one man and one woman.) The hardliner GLBTs who insist that the word "marriage" be redefined to include them, are the ones causing most of the trouble now. "Civil union", et al. the other euphemisms for the legal contract that marriage is to heterosexuals, is not acceptable (good enough) for the hardliners. They want it all: the sentiments of the majority be damned.

---

quote:

---

American support for same-sex marriage is rising steadily - and conservative Protestants seem to be the last religious group holding out against it, a large new poll suggests.

Nearly six out of 10 white evangelicals were against gay marriage, and just over five out of 10 black Protestants opposed it, the Public Religion Research Institute announced Wednesday.

But among Catholics and members of so-called "mainline" Protestant churches, more people favored gay marriage than opposed it.

People not affiliated with any religion back gay marriage by a 4-to-1 ratio, the 2010 American Values Survey found.

Among all Americans, backing for allowing gay and lesbian marriages rose from 29 percent in 2008 to 37 percent today.

And a majority of young people back gay marriage, their survey found - 52 percent of 18-29 year-olds are in favor, while another 23 percent support civil unions.

The results mirror similar findings from another recent survey.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, another Washington think tank, found last week that 42 percent of Americans favored gay marriage, while 48 percent opposed it.

It was the first time in the 15-year history of the Pew Forum asking the question that opposition to gay marriage fell below 50 percent, the think tank said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The analogy I was thinking this morning is with the female suffrage movement. The people opposed to granting the vote to women resorted to stereotypes about women that frankly is laughed at today: women being less intelligent and more passive than men. When people realized that the only arguments against giving the right to vote to women were these flawed prejudices, the opposition melted away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Most of the heterosexual majority are willing to allow any and all consenting adults to engage in whatsoever legal contracts with each other that they choose; and to facilitate such contracts so that there is no discrimination based on comparisons to heterosexual, monogamous marriage....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes to: society cannot function or long survive if sexual immorality becomes rampant. [...]

So individual repugnance (no matter what it is based on, religion, biology, upbringing, etc.) is no basis for defining what is moral conduct, in sex or anything else. [...]

In the USA we are deeply concerned to protect individual rights, especially of the weaker persons in society, women and children. [...]

Yet gov't can be granted too much licence to interfere too.

---

quote:

---

The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals. I pointed out with subsequent statements/responses, that the popularized media image of homosexuals (especially men) is one of licence and excess: yet heteros are no less libertine when they are immoral. (For some reason, my focusing on GLBT immorality caused the assertion that I am giving heterosexuals a pass.)

---

quote:

---

My purpose in pointing out the media-hyped immoral image of GLBTs was actually to show that I know where such an image comes from, and don't believe it: which was supposed to lead to the obvious conclusion that sexual morality is largely understood to be the same within both segments of society; and that everyone needs to agree on what sexual morality is in order to eliminate misunderstanding and acrimony. (I don't think I botched my point; I think some people on The Ship are understandably excitable on this topic and leap to conclusions about the intent of non GLBTs.)

---

quote:

---

When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".

---

quote:

---

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Back again: I was gone since yesterday with my wife on an outing.

I don't have the time to answer each and every question, or address every misconception or assertion about what I meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

If you demand the same morality from both heterosexuals and homosexuals than you ought to support giving the same pastoral support and care to both.

---

quote:

---

Marriage, in addition to being a commitment between two people, is also a commitment by the whole community to support the relationship. I sometimes believe that we lose sight of that and assume couples are solely responsible for the wellbeing of their relationship.

---

quote:

---

With same-sex marriage, the community not only accepts a same-sex relationship but publicly declares that it will support that relationship until death.

---

quote:

---

How exactly should LGBT people accept the same sexual morality that you propose if you refuse them the same treatment accorded to heterosexual couples? Without marriage, gay relationships will always be seen to be inferior to heterosexual relationships.

---

quote:

---

When we allow that the same commitment to what amounts to a marriage defines morality, then there is no legal reason to make any distinction about the meaning of "infidelity".

quote:

---

I don't follow. Faithfulness means to be faithful to one's partner. I don't see any difference if I'm making a pledge of fidelity to a man or a woman.

---

---

quote:

---

The word "marriage" is a battleground word. My personal feeling is that it ought to mean what it has always meant historically: which is why I mentioned the earlier, historical fact of homosexuality not being an allowed excuse for a man to shirk his duty to marry and beget children:

quote:

---

LOL. I don't know any straight man who pretends to be gay just to get out of marrying and having children.

---

---

quote:

---

... I have not yet heard a convincing argument as to why marriage should be reserved to heterosexual couples. Saying that civil unions should be given to same-sex couples instead of marriages doesn't address the fundamental issue of denying gays to that institution.

Because there is nothing in marriage that can't conceivably apply to same-sex couples. Procreation is not an essential requirement for marriage because we marry infertile and post-menopausal couples all the time.

In short, why should we accept discrimination when there is no legitimate reason for it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Yet you do have time to post lengthy screeds of your own devising.

---

quote:

---

The focus of my OP was upon recognizing and demanding the SAME morality from heterosexuals and homosexuals.

quote:

---

Yet most responders have understod it otherwise. And again, this is in Dead Horses . . . why?

And again, I call bullshit.

---

---

quote:

---

You'll notice in that Desert News coverage of the GLBT protest last week, that the LDS response was one of acceptance and love. So they claim. I am not aware of any official policy of the LDS Church that marginalizes homosexuals because of their same-sex attraction; and the same requirements for repentance apply to heterosexuals who give into temptation and act upon their inclinations. Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.

---

quote:

---

More fuzzy-feelkng altruism. I like the sound of it. But really, this world isn't made that way and never will be. Acceptance for hardwired heterosexuals will always be to ignore the same-sex relationships, i.e. put up with them: the same way we have to put up with a ton of differences we don't prefer: the color of the neighbor's house, how many children they have, the kind of noise emitting from their property, their religious beliefs, their cultural background (including the smells of their food wafting into your space), their pets, etc. ad nauseam. We live close physically to each other, and there are constant compromises we must make in order to do so. I don't support any other relationship entered into by my neighbors "till death". Those are their own concern. My duty as a citizen of the community is to defend justice and see that I don't commit any myself. Period.

---

quote:

---

I don't refuse them the same treatment. Where have I said that I'm for a double standard? I admitted my personal feelings about the word "marriage". And you are proving the point: that GLBTs will not stop till they get it too. Which, as I suspect, will piss off the heterosexual majority no-end. You want the same word, thinking that when you win it, that will somehow compel a change in attitude in the non-homosexual majority toward GLBTs. It won't. This is similar to the fracas over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque: the feelings are there and remain alive, no matter how much opponents of the protest against the religious center try and compel the protesters to see that they are only being bigots to feel the way that they do. In similar fashion, anti-homosexual feelings will not die out sooner because GLBT wins the word "marriage" to recognize their legalized unions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Admitting that you are same-sex attraction tempted does not constitute a state of sin, anymore than admitting that you are tempted to get more than one wife, or sleep around.....The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel. When homosexuality was not only condoned by openly admitted/accepted (e.g. ancient Greece and Rome), men still were required to marry and beget children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Shall I mention the fact that the LDS Church poured substantial contributions to the Prop 8 campaign in California?

No one cares if the LDS Church makes doctrinal decisions for its members. People do care when they get involved in the political process and attempt to enforce their morality on people who are not Mormon.

---

quote:

---

Do you put up with your children's marriages? Of course the couple is primarily responsible for their relationship. The community's role is to:

1) Acknowledge and celebrate their relationship when they are present. "So and so is the spouse of so and so."
2) Do not undermine the relationship when it is going through tough times, ie: Do not start dating one spouse during the marriage.
3) Pray and support them in their continual happiness.

---

quote:

---

It has nothing to do with wanting a "word." You still have not addressed the central question. Why should marriage be limited to heterosexuals? You bring up civil unions, but my question is why should gay couples settle for a different institution other than marriage?

---

quote:

---

There are plenty of heterosexuals who are perfectly fine with allowing legal same-sex marriage. Are you implying that they are lesser heterosexuals because they refuse to pick up the banner and fight against LGBT people?

---

quote:

---

There is no significant difference between gay and straight couples.

---

quote:

---

To deny marriage to gay couples makes about as much sense as denying marriage to blonds. We no longer make procreation the litmus test for marriage. As well, there are plenty of same-sex couples who adopt and raise children. In everything that matters, they are a family and thus entitled to the same rights of other families.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel.

---

This is utter, complete nonsense.

A family friend of ours recently came out as gay in his 50s - having been married and his children have grown up. Until now he has felt unable to be himself.

My husband and I both feel for him, and his family.

He's by no means the only one. I blame society's attitude which can still be horrendously homophobic.

A common insult among children round here is 'you are gay'
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The only time a homosexual would have to pretend to be straight is when it would be hazardous to openly practice homosexuality, e.g. in medieval Europe, or ancient Israel.

---

This is utter, complete nonsense.

A family friend of ours recently came out as gay in his 50s - having been married and his children have grown up. Until now he has felt unable to be himself.

My husband and I both feel for him, and his family.

He's by no means the only one. I blame society's attitude which can still be horrendously homophobic.

A common insult among children round here is 'you are gay'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.

---

Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:


This thread would not reach the end of page one, if our society was accepting of homosexual relationships. There would no issue to discuss.

---

I earnestly pray for that day to arrive
 

---

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
I'll fix this for you:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

This thread would not reach the end of page one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So being gay is equivalent to being a bigamist or an adulterer?

Didn't people have to pretend to be straight, and many went into disastrous marriages, between the reformation and the 1967 Act which partially decriminalised homosexuality? Lots were blackmailed, many imprisoned.

---

Being gay isn't; but giving into it through sexual activity is the same as any other fornication.

---

So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?

---

Good point, Leo.

I must say, Merlinthemad, I don't like the words 'giving in to it' It suggests its something wrong to be resisted.

-----------------------------------------
LGBT Eucharist On our church blog, click here.
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I'll fix this for you:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

This thread would not reach the end of page one

---

. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.

Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So a gay man being true to himself is 'fornication' whereas a gay man entering a love-less, sexless marriage is good? For whom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I asked earlier what 'special rights' you were talking about. Is this an exhaustive list of the special rights that you have in mind? I presume that you cannot support such a petition because you agree with civil unions (or indicated as much earlier)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Sorry I did not get to a link for this earlier. I was somewhat harassed by time constraints.

I am sure that is anything but "an exhaustive list" of "special rights". And yes, I could not sign it, because I believe that "gay marriage" is inevitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
So the GLBT advocacy has alarmed many people. Here's an example of the concerns that they have. I am sure the list of protested GLBT agenda items is not purely imaginary. You now have this opportunity to show that the GLBT advocacy is not in fact pushing for these kinds of "special rights" under the facade of "equal rights"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I'll fix this for you:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

This thread would not reach the end of page one

---

. . . if you had honestly and openly posted what you want to discuss in the first place, because there are already multiple threads on the topic, to which you have added nothing new.

Come down off the cross, Merlin. We need the wood.

---

hosting
This is getting too close to C3 name calling and personal insults. Please remember that there is an open Hell thread where you can take that sort of thing. It doesn't belong here.

Louise

Dead Horses Host
hosting off

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I haven't read a copy of the Homosexual Agenda [tm] in quite a long time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
What SHOULD be forbidden is preaching homophobia through selective use of the bible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No - free speech is important. Homophobes should have the right to show themselves up by talking nonsence.

---

That's about the first thing anyone's said on this thread that looks unambiguously right...

And MtM's petition about "special rights" was opposed to workplaces or government offering voluntary sensitivity training programmes.


[ 18. October 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Gotcha, ok.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
I was noticing that the list of supposed "special" rights was nothing of the sort. Since everyone has a "gender identity" and a "sexual orientation", any protections offered are general, not special.

Of course, just as to certain whites race is only something other people have, there's a certain mindset that can't imagine their own sexual orientation being discriminated against so any protections along those lines are for other people.
 

---

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Bingo
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 
Since it was mentioned - the original Homosexual Agenda as published years ago on rec.humor.fun and posted numerous places on the web, some versions cleaner than others. Sad thing is, some think it's not humor, but factual.

" I have finally obtained a copy directly from the Head Homosexual.

It follows below:

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM 1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local Governments as well as all other national governments, 2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle, 3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages, 4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian and Jamaican drug cartels, 5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly pederastic gay leadership, 6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and 7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest 4:00 PM Cocktails 6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay) 8:00 PM Theater 11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?"
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Of course anecdotal exceptions to anything can be presented; e.g. the assertion that gays don't get visiting rights in hospitals, or count as "family" (next of kin if they've set up such a relationship via legal channels), etc., I have pointed out are examples of local prejudice, not how the laws can be and ought to be applied. Of course, a comeback points out that I am mistaken: and of course I can point out that I have never known personally of such prejudices, but only heard of them via the media. I have friends who work (and have worked) at hospitals: and I have yet to hear of a single such case of blatant prejudice against gays. It is in the interest of the hospital to benefit the patient as much as possible: to my perspective, any cretin forbidding visiting rights on the basis of being GLBT is a mythical creature! I am sure they must exist if "you" (collective) insist, but I have to take this on faith, since I have no experience with it, nor does anyone else I have known.

---

Merlin,

I do not want to shock you but some parts of the world have different laws from Utah and/or the USA.

AIUI, in this country, if some-one is in intensive care at hospital, the only person allowed to visit them is the next of kin. If the patient is unconscious, they cannot be consulted about who they would like to be able to visit them and the hospital will follow the letter of the law. Until civil unions came into being, it was impossible for an unmarried partner to be recognised legally as next of kin, regardless of how long the couple had lived together. The legal next of kin is the nearest blood relative and, if the patient is unable to express his/her own wishes, it is the next of kin who makes the decisions on their behalf - leading to the injustices described by Leo.

Just because it does not happen in Utah does not mean that it does not happen anywhere in the world.

Joanna
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.

---

If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.
 

---

Posted by Apocalypso (# 15405) on :
 
Merlin:

The problem with hospitals, visiting, and next-of-kin can and does arise, but not in the way you seem to imagine.

With a reasonably alert, conscious patient, hospitals (at least where I live) don't prohibit visits during visiting hours, period. Pretty much anybody can walk into a patient's room, and unless the patients rings for someone to chuck them out, all goes well.

The problem arises primarily when the patient is not conscious and/or at death's door, and a related-by-blood Next of Kin is notified (usually because we're talking about a youngish person who's been in a serious accident or has fallen suddenly and unexpectedly ill and has made no prior arrangements.

The blood relative is sometimes homophobic, and/or doesn't accept the patient's identity. It's often this person who denies the patient's SO any access to the patient. In lieu of instructions from the patient, the hospital defers to the next-of-kin.

Although the issues were different (terminating life-supports, not visitation), you'll recall the Terry Schiavo case, with parents and husband at each other's throats over what the patient would have wanted.
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
...it isn't clear what these rights are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...

The petition stinks.

---

quote:

---

To be clear, I support a government that establishes protections for voluntary contracts entered into by two consenting adults. If two men or two women desire to legally share in each others fortune or debt, grant medical decision making power to each other, or establish any other coequal status amongst themselves, I have no problem whatsoever with this. Contract protection is indeed one of the few proper functions of government. The act of sexual intercourse should also not be regulated against when it is being carried out by two consenting adults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
@John: way to dismiss "the messenger" by attacking my perspective. I am from Utah, "Hickvill USA"; land of the Mormon fundies. So in your opinion, I am "...totally unaware of what's happening anywhere else in the world." The rest of what follows is equally derogatory. If I was "totally unaware" your opinion would be valid. But it should be obvious by this point that I am far from "totally unaware" of the challenges facing all of us, everywhere, regarding the legalities of the GLBT advocacy agenda.

---

Actually, it's not at all clear or obvious what your position is.

---

quote:

---

Almost without exception what you have posted has been nastily and subtly anti-gay,...

---

quote:

---

... based on fiction or -- as I said -- it assumes that your fellow citizens constitute a peculiar group in the world in being unable to cope with or accept what all the rest of us appear to be able to deal with.

---

quote:

---

You now say a bunch of things about your beliefs that appear to contradict almost all your previous posts.

---

quote:

---

...I'm left with the impression of someone profoundly confused, very angry, and not really (at least in his current state of mind) very good at communicating.

---

quote:

---

I'm not attacking you -- I'm just reacting to what you've said and the way you've said it. When so many people all "misunderstand" you, and all in the same way, maybe the problem is not with them.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.

---

If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.

---

England doesn't count

I was thinking of more Bohemian parts of Europe, maybe France or Italy in particular. And I was certainly not assuming ALL or even most men show their affection in public this way. But it is accepted and common....
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

I do not want to shock you but some parts of the world have different laws from Utah and/or the USA.

---

quote:

---

...

Just because it does not happen in Utah does not mean that it does not happen anywhere in the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
http://www.squidoo.com/gayspecialrights This hits it pretty lucidly, I think. He's all for preserving the definition of "marriage", yet equally all for the same rights and protections for anyone, homosexuals included.

---

quote:

---

Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
European men traditionally meet affectionately, as women do: with a kiss and a hug and spoken endearments.

---

If you believe this to be true of all European men, you clearly have very little knowledge of life here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...

A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

---

quote:

---

BTW, that post is full of all kinds of the usual misinformation; the "average disposable income" for gay people is based on marketing surveys in high-end magazines. In other words, the people responding are already in higher-income brackets (they bought the high-end magazine) - and it only contains information from people who choose to respond! A self-selected group, IOW, surveyed by companies who want to sell them products.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:

quote:

---

Obviously, if a patient is comatose, and the SO wants to be at the bedside; and the parents, siblings, et al. blood kin want the SO kept away, it's going to happen regardless of any other considerations. No amount of writing "special" protective verbiage is going to prevent these occasions. The same is true of heterosexual couples who are only common law; any next of kin trump the common law spouse if there is a conflict of interest. The hospital staff are not going to endanger the patient by allowing acrimony at the hospital. Someone is going to be kept out, and it is going to be the "stranger". Any civil suits brought resulting from said-estrangement will of course be worked out to the best of the court's ability, and not always justly....

---

Which is why there is a need for gay marriage. because in a legal marriage, the _spouse_ is the legal next of kin.

You have proved the point yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

---

As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
... Het couples (and singles) don't seem bothered in the least that "marriage" is used of same-sex marriages.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Merlin, minority groups and women are already protected as "suspect classes" by federal law; ENDA isn't anything different than what exists already, except that it adds sexual orientation (and I think gender identity) to the suspect classes. So there aren't any "special rights" being handed out that don't already exist for others.

---

As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

---

Well, to be consistent, you'll need to start advocating to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In any case, I'm not sure why you think there needs to be some sort of logical consistency here. The choice of a name for a legal relationship has, literally, nothing in common with the problem of employment discrimination. And, in fact, you seem to have a logical problem yourself, as I mentioned above - to wit, why the need for two totally separate sets of laws that do exactly the same thing?

---

quote:

---

That's pretty incoherent, really - particularly when the legality of marriage is determined, mostly, on a state-by-state basis. That's now 50 sets of duplicated laws!

---

quote:

---

... And in fact I advocated for "civil union" myself - but then realized it was just a silly redundancy based on almost nothing. Marriage can still be sacred to people if they wish it - or else, call all civil marriages "civil unions," if that makes people feel better. I don't care.)

Speaking of making no sense, your last sentence doesn't; what are you trying to say?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
As I said to orfeo, above: the GLBT advocacy has created the distinction by insisting that homosexuality is a difference necessary for special "suspect class" status in the discrimination laws. Yet GLBTs want no distinctions in the marriage laws? This makes no logical sense: especially when the vast majority of heterosexuals agree that any consenting adults ought to have access to the very same rights, privileges and obligations that heterosexual marriage provides for the legal union of one man and one woman.

---

If so, you are being just as illogical by not wanting anti-discrimination laws to mention homosexuals as a distinct class, but wanting them to call their marriages something else because they are in a separate class.

---

quote:

---

But the main point is that you are wrong about why "differences" get mentioned in discrimination legislation. It is because they are irrelevant differences as far as ‘treating people fairly' is concerned. Not employing someone who is black matters, not because ‘blackness' is an important difference for employment purposes, but because it isn't. It ought to be of no consequence at all whether one employs a black person or a white one. Fairness requires that they be treated the same.

---

quote:

---

That's not to say that a person can't feel that being black is an important part of his or her identity or culture. Of course they can. The point is that it is not the sort of distinction that ought to count against them in employment or other rights. It's the same for "homosexual". It's makes a difference to personal identity, but it is utterly irrelevant when it comes to fair treatment. That's why "sexual orientation" belongs with "race", "religion", "sex", "nationality", "disability" and so on in anti-discrimination laws: those are things that should make no difference at all to a person's entitlement to just and equal treatment, regardless of their personal importance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...

---

OK, I get it now; it was hard to tell what you meant because one thought extended over two sentences.

I am curious as to why you care so much what the government does, though. Isn't it the cultural aspect that concerns you here? That's what it seems to be, anyway. And since heterosexuals are the vast majority and always will be, can't you continue to disdain the idea of "homosexual marriage" as you now do, and keep that cultural ideal intact? Surely it's irrelevant what legal name is given to something you don't believe exists anyway....? Nobody can force to you "accept" anybody you don't like; the only request is to treat people equitably.

---

quote:

---

(Or perhaps you're just ticked off at "gay activists" in general and venting spleen? You seem to have a lot of resentment about a lot of different issues here.)

---

quote:

---

I do think the states will object to the two sets of laws, though - and so will others, who will see it as blatant discrimination. As I said, I don't personally care much, because I'm not that interested in what the government does. It does a lot of stupid things and it's a waste of time getting exercised over most of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....

---

What, exactly, are all these "perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults," please? What does that even mean?

The request at the moment is to allow two people of the same sex to be married. The only option on the books at the moment is permitting two people of the opposite sex to be married.

What other possible permutations are there, pray tell?

---

quote:

---

(BTW, polygamy has been accepted for, I'd bet, far longer than monogamy has been mandated, so I'm not so sure about the "time immemorial" and "thousands of years of tradition" aspect. Marriage simply hasn't always been "the union of one man and one woman," much as you want to lean on that argument. And nobody's trying to change the "monogamous" aspect, anyway - which is surely what you prize in your "definition of marriage," isn't it? If it were just the heterosexuality of the thing, polygamy would do nicely, wouldn't it?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'm intensely interested in what the Gov't does: the Gov't is a composite of "Mini Mes", thus it reflects on society of which I am a part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Let "marriage between one man and one woman" head that list, since it came first in this Nation; then let any other "classes" follow. (Why do I imagine that the GLBT advocacy would howl that the order in which legalized unions are listed matters? That their name for their unions is discriminated against because it isn't listed first?...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
....

---

It may happen under Canadian law.

Unless a denomination specifically forbids it for their clergy, a particular clergy of that denomination may not refuse. So, for example, if the United Church does not forbid such 'marriages', any United Church minister cannot refuse. That is, they may be coerced by the government to do so. It will not be up to the particular church, or minister, to be able to refuse.

That is the law here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however, is based on giving up everything and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese. It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes.

---

quote:

---

3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
In Canada, clergy have absolute discretion in whom they choose to marry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You are mistaken here on a few points: In THIS Nation, monogamy has been the ONLY form of marriage upheld by the Constitution. The rest of the world can do as they please. And historically, the greatest civilizations of the world have upheld monogamy as well; the other expressions of sexual excess have all be allowed only outside of marriage. Where polygamy exists it is almost always polygany. But polyandry has been and is used to limit population growth. (I believe that if China instituted polyandry that their problem with excess male population would virtually disappear virtually overnight, and would continue to effectively limit their population growth.) Polygany almost always defers to the "first wife"; who has inheritance rights and property disposition rights that trump the other wives' rights. So in effect, polygany (the same institution as the OT "patriarchal marriage") is for the first wife much the same thing as monogamy; all she has to do is share her husband sexually; something that many women don't seem to mind at all, or even welcome in some circumstances....

And, you can bet your last dollar, safely, that the polygamist advocacy is prepared to ride on the success of the GLBT advocacy straight to an overturning of the anti polygamy laws (anti bigamy laws, actually).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...

A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"

---

A silly analogy, imho; since marriage IS just about the most common institution in the world. It happens to also be the most important to most people. It has a name. If you would accept the challenge to come up with a special name for your special arrangement, instead of trying to topple the apple cart, there would not be an issue regarding equal rights.

You're ignoring the central qualifier to the issue of definition: "marriage" can be preserved just as it has always been. As clarified and admitted: hardly anyone in the USA is against equal rights, protections included, for homosexuals or any other minority.

The writer invites gays to come up with their own (creative, imaginative) term for their unions: Which will be precisely the same rights, privileges and obligations as "marriage". Since the gender attraction issue is the "difference" brought up by homosexuals themselves, it is up to them to define that difference with a word/term for their civil unions, instead of insisting that the majority are wrong to point out that that difference even matters. It obviously matters to "you" a great deal. And it also matters to the heterosexual majority.

At one and the same time, you are saying "We're Gay" and insisting that the distinction isn't worthy of mention in the marriage laws (unless, of course, you can win a special mention of gender not being a qualifier): AND fighting to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the "suspect classes" in the discrimination laws. The minority protection status is created by the GLBT advocacy itself. This is a natural reaction from a marginalized group who are fighting for equality. But it also validates the majority's fight to preserve the definition of "marriage" as traditional heterosexual monogamy.

Therefore you have nothing to argue for except a prideful desire to give some "payback" for all the generations of homosexuals who have lived in their private hells of fear and deprivation....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
is based on giving up everything

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

---

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?

---

Um, incest is illegal, and gay marriage doesn't change that. Gay people - as the saying goes - are asking to be able to marry somebody, not anybody. We would like to have the support of partners in life, like the rest of humanity - and in this age of "marriage for love," it's hard to see why this should be denied.

---

quote:

---

...

Your original claims about "one man and one woman" were "always," and "for thousands of years" - neither of which time frame fits the term of existence of the United States. If you'd stop being hysterical and use language that fits your arguments, nobody would challenge you on basic errors.

---

quote:

---

I don't think many people are likely to be arguing for polygamy - and many fewer would support it, and there are lots of reasons why not. Multiple wives (as you note, by far the most common arrangement) and dozens of children are potentially big problems for the state, because most single men won't be able to support them - and who would, at that point? You guessed it - the rest of us. There have been recent cases of teenaged boys being dumped by the side of the road, ejected from polygamous groups because they are threats to the adult men. Gay people (for the thousandth time!) are asking only to be allowed to marry once, like everybody else can - not dozens of times.

It's ludicrous that we have say these things hundreds of times....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Underage children are deemed to not have the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relationships with adults. They also aren't allowed to execute legal contracts (which is what marriage essentially is), legally drink alcohol, drive cars or serve the military either. Gay marriage between consenting adults wouldn't affect this status. Consent means consent, and part of giving consent is being deemed by the law (and psychologists) as having the capacity to do so.

It makes for a great red herring though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
False dichotomy. The very same wording you used could be applied by a father and daughter wanting to marry each other; or twin sisters/brothers, etc. There is no reason against incest if the possibility of fertility is removed. The only possible objection is upon deap-seated, traditional grounds, i.e. religious grounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I agree with you! But that won't stop the bringing up of their "special practice" and fighting it to the bitter end. Polygamy is only natural in those rare (and temporary) situations where one gender greatly outnumbers the other. It isn't natural to Nature, no matter what "prophet" said so, quoting The Almighty in the bargain, so he asserted anyway....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Another concept from discrimination law that clearly hasn't registered is that discrimination can consist of either failing to take a relevant difference into account, or taking an irrelevant difference into account.

You've conflated the two about half a dozen times in this post.

---

quote:

---

The whole point is that we are arguing that gender is NOT a relevant difference in a marriage. I don't want a special arrangement. I want the same arrangement you've got. And as I've already observed, if it really IS the same thing as you keep trying to tell me, it makes no sense to have 2 different names for it.

It's either a special arrangement or it's exactly the same. You can't rationally argue both of those things simultaneously.

---

quote:

---

You want no distinction based on gender whatsoever. Have you even imagined what the ultimate outcome of such an agenda could be?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

---

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however,

---

Unsupported assumption; nobody knows that a majority of heteros is reluctant.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
is based on giving up everything

---

??? Giving up what, exactly? What rights, privileges, or status do "reluctant heteros" no longer have as the result of other people being allowed to marry?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese.

---

How? Right now, a "special minority class" exists which is denied (in most US states and federally) the right to marry -- a right extended to all adult heterosexuals but denied to all adult homosexuals. It's the denial which creates the "special minority class." Extending the right to marry to all adults eliminates that status; no legalese required.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.).

---

How do you arrive at this? First, "marriage" does not equal "sex" (just ask any married couple who have made it past the first couple of years).

---

quote:

---

Extending the right to marry to any adult citizen will not affect the number of people one can marry (currently limited to one); the age of the one person one intends to marry (varies somewhat under state law, but generally 18 or with parental consent at younger ages; or the unenforceable laws which no doubt remain on the books in many places about impermissible sexual practices.

People wanting to marry children will not be challenging this solely under relevant marriage laws, but under laws regarding the welfare of children. People wanting to marry members of other species will have to challenge this under laws regarding the welfare of animals (to say nothing of their putative rights and status under the law). People wanting to marry multiple partners simultaneously will have to challenge under inheritance laws (and probably others too) as well as marital law.

These aren't simply matters of degree, as you seem to assume; they are matters of different legal classes. Adult citizens belong to one legal class (or should); children belong to another, as do animals, and so on.

---

quote:

---

The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off. And your agenda is blowing off the lid. Or hadn't you noticed? THAT is the equality: break the china, and you invite every other patron to break more china....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by testbear:
...

All the LGTB "brigade" want to do is change the "one man and one woman" part of the definition of marriage to "one person and one other person", and keep all the other parts of the definition of marriage exactly as they are.

In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...

Personally, I think we should throw out the archaic notions of civil marriage altogether and allow anyone to "marry" anyone else. It doesn't mean they will have a romantic or sexual relationship, but it does mean that everyone receives equal treatment under a law that takes into account modern life.

see: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/index.html

---

Oh goody. Complete caving in to the mounting pressure of minority claims from every quarter. This is good!

Of course, SEX is involved. It's just that "The State" will turn a blind eye. Until the daughter brings charges up against her DP, her dad in this case, of sexual abuse, coercion, rape, etc. ad nauseam. There will be no end to the bizarre cases, since EVERY DP permutation imaginable is okeedokee in "tak[ing] into account modern life".

There is no greater fallacious assertion than that somehow our species today (Ooo, we moderns) is different from all the other times we have experimented with giving ourselves unbridled license, and worse, made it all legal.

quote:

---

Can you give me one real world example of this happening in any of the jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal? Are there incest and bestiality rights groups petitioning the Canadian Parliament for legal recognition? I'm not aware of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[qb] But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.

---

Exactly how would you know this?
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For marriage (which is what this thread is about)? The outcome is the awful nightmarish dystopia that is modern Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Belgium, or Norway, or Argentina, or Iowa, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Connecticut.

Awful awful places populated by hoards of hermaphrodites.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by testbear:
In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

---

I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I would say yes also, for a slightly different reason. Expanding the definition includes larger numbers of people. More people, more strength.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

---

quote:

---

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

---

quote:

---

Why else, to you suppose, the OZ case between the father and daughter came up now? I'll answer that: Simply because the "gay marriage" agenda has made such progress lately everywhere (just look at TD's list of Shangri-Las). This encourages even smaller minorites to push for equal treatment. And if there cannot be shown reasonable doubt why a refusal should be made on civil rights grounds, those "minorities" will get their own exceptions passed into law as well.

---

quote:

---

The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

---

Almost no legal discrimination maybe. Do you really believe its all fine now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by testbear:
...

You believe that there is a qualitive difference; one that means witholding certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s) (note, not sexuality; as a straight man I would currently be forbidden from marrying another straight man in many parts of the US even if we only married for, say, some hypothetical tax break) of those wishing to utilise that legal allowance.

---

quote:

---

The will of the people is now turning to recognise that denying people the opportunity to get married simply for this (gender) reason is no longer acceptable in the USA.

---

quote:

---

...

Nobody currently believes that a daughter-father relationship is qualitively identical to either (or both) of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship.

---

quote:

---

If that starts to change, it will have to overcome current thinking about protecting people in an unbalanced power relationship, and concerns about the effects of the genetics involved on any possible offspring.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and it's not "one of the most fundamental laws governing society"; if it were, there would be many fewer co-habiting heterosexual couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But Blacks, Mormons and Whites all have recompense under the law if they are discriminated against. One can even argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a great deal to change opinions because it changed the composition of the work place.

You advocate that gay people discriminated against or fired because they were gay have no recompense.

---

What?

Of course "gays" have recourse, and possible recompense under the existing anti discrimination laws. The "suspect classes" are not supposed to be exhaustive; as I said, like the Bill of Rights, they point out the obviousness of an individual right to equality: they don't pretend to list ALL of the possible civil rights (suspect classes).

It happens famously that homosexuals win civil rights cases; this occurs more and more often as more of them take courage and fight for their rights in the open. That is momentum.

My sister-in-law could have taken her former bigoted, Black Lesbian Boss lady to court. Instead, she quit and got another job. Homosexuals do this all the time. So do most people who are harassed at work. No amount of fairness laws will make people stand up for themselves every time. As long as there are assholes there will be victims. Some of them fight, sometimes. And sometimes they win. Homosexuals are no exception even without any further changes to the legalese....
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And it's a contradictory argument:

Prejudice and bigotry have gone away so we don't need an anti-discrimination law, yet individuals and businesses would be unduly burdened if such a law was passed. It can't work both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But since you brought it up: I believe that we need FAR fewer laws, not more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Justice is very simple and clear; it doesn't require a rocket scientist level Law Degree to figure out.

---

quote:

---

But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is argued BY sexually moral people

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

---

Although it would make inheritance and end-of-life care decisions hell. As they are now for many gay couples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

---

Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?

---

quote:

---

BTW, the same question can be asked of your proposal for "Separate but Equal" nomenclature for same-sex marriages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They don't have legal recourse, in those jurisdictions where discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't prohibited. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because of sexual orientation in jurisdictions where it isn't forbidden. You can take that company to court, but you'll lose. If it isn't explicit in the law, it ain't illegal.

---

quote:

---

Quitting a job because of abuse by a supervisor based on race, gender, religion, etc. isn't legal recourse. Often you are throwing accumulated years of service (and the benefits it accrues away.) Many people don't want to leave their jobs. They want the harassment and discrimination to end. That's what these laws are for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It is argued BY sexually moral people

---

Who are these people and who decides that they are such?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

---

Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?

---

Because it was understood that objections to inter-racial marriage were largely a modern phenomenon and not grounded in historical marriage prohibitions at all.

<snip>

The SCOTUS could clearly see and demonstrate "American" prejudice, based solely upon old angst festering since the slavery days. It was specifically THAT prohibition that was being struck down and killed.

---

quote:

---

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Taken to its logical, inescapable conclusion, ALL marriages are inter-racial, since it is proven fact that there is only one homo sapiens with variations only in appearance, not function. "Race" is all in the bigoted mind.

But no society or civilization, contributing to "Western Civilization" today, has offered same-sex unions recognition as legalized "marriages", with all that that implies in the GLBT(Q?) agenda. Call every other legalized union that isn't man and woman "domestic partnerships", I don't care. The word "marriage" means what it has always meant, still (but won't much longer I suspect).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
According to the Wiki:

Between 1913 and 1940, 31 out of the then 48 states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. 17 states - Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin (and the federal District of Columbia) never enacted them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
"Always"? Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race.

---

This isn't true, by the way. Virginia had such a law, but many (most?) other states didn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If you want fewer laws, Merlin, we can do away with legal recognition of marriage altogether. The State can recognise each and every citizen as an individual and completely ignore what forms of relationship might happen to exist between any given two of them.

It'd make the administration of a whole range of things a damn sight simpler.

---

You're not serious. But I'll offer the obvious rebuttal anyway: inheritance and property rights are a clear interest of The State. Without clear definitions of what belongs to who and is inherited by whom, chaos and violence are the result....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
...Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
...Fifty years ago "marriage" in America meant a bond between a man and woman of the same race. A hundred years before that it meant a legal agreement under which the wife ceased to be a 'person' under the law. I'd say that the modern notion of marriage as a loving partnership of equals has already destroyed "traditional" marriage, and about time, too. Of course gay couples would consider "a loving partnership of equals" to be a much more accurate description of their own relationships than "an arrangement with strictly defined and legally enforced gender roles", as marriage was seen until recently. Which is why this issue is in many ways about nostalgia for an era of much more rigorously policed gender roles.

---

Your points are all well presented. The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nevertheless, my personal feeling remains sympathetic to the historical, heterosexual-only definition of "marriage". Your bringing into the definition of "marriage" such things, e.g. the woman ceasing to be her own person 150 years ago, are non sequitur vis-a-vis the sexual ONLY aspect; which is the only one I was defending. I agree, that "marriage" in all other aspects has improved with the changes that have liberated women from virtual servitude and the status of a chattel. But lets not confuse the issue of gender with changing legal status....

---

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. That gay couples can get legally married by aren't allowed to have sex?

At any rate, this is a complete contradiction of your earlier argument that because marriage has "always" been a particular way we daren't change it. Now it seems you're saying we are allowed to make changes to marriage law, like doing away with coverture, but for some unexplained reason we can't do away with the gender restriction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.

---

Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.

You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!

An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....

---

Let's see... the easiest thing to change out of what IS would be... one line in the definition of marriage!

Thanks Merlin, I'm glad you agree with us.

[ 24. October 2010, 00:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

---

I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
... All that the State provides in terms of inheritance is some default rules when people are too lazy to write their own wills.

In many places, the last of those default rules involves property going to the State. Keep that rule and you've got a workable system. The State gets the property, and puts it toward the welfare system.

It'll work. Whether you LIKE it or not is a completely different question, but it will work perfectly well as a legal system.

---

Agreed. But the issue is changing what IS as little as necessary. And "marriage" is the method by which the State adjudicates property rights and inheritance.

You make it look so simple: just toss "marriage" out altogether and bring in something else simple to take its place. If we weren't dealing with people I'd agree. But the whole furor is caused by people who don't want change. What else is new!

An upsetting of the apple cart is exciting but is it a wise move? Too much change too fast tends to unsettle societies. The resulting remake could be completely contrary to the expectations of the GLBT(Q?)s as well as the heteros; because one major shift will cause other shifts in what the society does. These cannot be predicted with any confidence. Especially since this issue is completely new ground. What seems to be working in a few places over the last few years may not be indicative at all of what will occur in the USA, or anywhere else in the longer term....

---

Let's see... the easiest thing to change out of what IS would be... one line in the definition of marriage!

Thanks Merlin, I'm glad you agree with us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Rubbish.

---

I note you didn't respond to my point about end-of-life care decisions. EVEN WITH A POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL CARE many states will defer to the family over a long-term gay partner. But not over a spouse.

---

I note I didn't respond either. That would be because I was busy playing devil's advocate and you actually made a GOOD point that was far harder to refute than Merlin's focus on inheritance.

---

Oh. I guess I failed to pick up that you were playing devil's advocate. Sorry 'bout that.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Don't worry, it just proves I was doing it well.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The irony is that it is usually CONSERVATIVES who complain that laws are too complex and should be simpler and shorter.

Yet because of their opposition to simply extending marriage to gay couples, conservatives are prepared to endure increased bureaucracy and more complex legislation because many of them at least acknowledge the injustice of denying a person the right to see their partner in the hospital.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.

---

Given what you do for a living, it's frightening hearing you say that.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Come up with a different word/term for what you want between homosexuals...

---

Why? If marriage is seen as an exchange of love, respect, honesty, and fidelity between two consenting adults; and LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these goods; then why have a different word?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Um .... surely all we need to do is change it from 'one man and one woman' to 'two people'

Job done, no fuss, no problem - no other change needed. And certainly no change to society - except an improvement in equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?

---

quote:

---

And how long is this homosexuals acronym going to get?

---

quote:

---

..."Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), ...

---

quote:

---

As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally

---

quote:

---

it ought to remain defined as such.

---

quote:

---

Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[...] Infertility was never one of them.

---

quote:

---

That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.

---

quote:

---

But as this thread shows, again: the GLBT(Q?) advocacy is after total victory at any price. That is the facade, because it takes everything unto itself and gives nothing in return. It IS about gaining special status: "you" can even rework the dictionary against the opinions of the majority....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

---

WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.

Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Messianic Jews?
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
ken: Point taken, although you may be attributing to me a more simplistic interpretation than the one I actually hold. Before 1929 in Canada, the law was such that, on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling,

quote:

---

"women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."

---

Isn't that delightful? Women were not considered fully persons under the law, with rights to launch legal action, hold a seat in Parliament or the Senate, etc.

While not officially considered chattel property, women had no independent legal standing. From a legal standpoint, they had as little voice in proceedings as a child, a pet, or a box of widgets.

Upthread, Croesos helpfully linked to the legal doctrine of coverture, in which (according to Wikipedia) "a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband. Coverture was enshrined in the common law of England and the United States throughout most of the 19th century."
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
MerlintheMad: So your essential objection to the use of "marriage" when used of LGBTQ* legal relationships is that it's rude? Have I got that right? Even if I agreed with your concept of an offended majority - which I don't necessarily - how long should LGBTQ* people wait until what is rightfully theirs is granted?

Didn't the US have this conversation in the context of racial desegregation? Do you think African American people should have waited until it was broadly socially acceptable for them to have the same rights and public access as other Americans? Would they still be waiting?

*I left off 2S, for "two-spirited", in deference to your confusion about Q
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
"Q" can also be "questioning", a term applied to people trying to figure out what they are.

Human sexuality is as complex as human beings are. It should be no surprise that there would be a few initials.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
ken: Point taken, although you may be attributing to me a more simplistic interpretation than the one I actually hold. Before 1929 in Canada, the law was such that, on the basis of an 1876 British common law ruling, [QUOTE] "women were eligible for pains and penalties, but not rights and privileges."

---

quote:

---

While not officially considered chattel property,

---

quote:

---

women had no independent legal standing. From a legal standpoint, they had as little voice in proceedings as a child, a pet, or a box of widgets.

---

quote:

---

Upthread, Croesos helpfully linked to the legal doctrine of coverture, in which (according to Wikipedia) "a legal doctrine whereby, upon marriage, a woman's legal rights were subsumed by those of her husband.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You got it in a nutshell. Wish I could have said it that simply.

---

Given what you do for a living, it's frightening hearing you say that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

---

And this is different from your normal mode of posting how?
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?

---

Queer

---

But that is a slur? Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, are all terms applied by homosexuals to themselves. "Queer" is derogatory, like "faggot", and other even less complimentary terms applied by heterosexuals. So why tack "Q" onto the acronym?

quote:

---

quote:

---

..."Western Civilization" (the one Judeo-Christians are concerned about, because we live here), ...

---

WTF is a "Judeo-Christian"? I've never met one.

Does it include Mormons? If it does it ought to include Muslims whose religion is far closer to Judaism than Mormnonism is.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

As "marriage" has always been the contract by which men and women bind themselves to each other legally

---

Yes, obviously

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

it ought to remain defined as such.

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Fertility has nothing whatsoever to do with it.[...] Infertility was never one of them.

---

Thats not true, there have been plently of legal codes in which infertility was grounds for divorce.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.

---

This is the part of your argument that is utter bollocks. I mean really its drivel. You obviously haven't thought it through.

...

And if some government or other decides to call such partnerships "marriage" in some law or other, who is harmed? The reality of the thing is not altered, only the name they use. You and me can carry on using the word for men and women together if we want. What on earth is the problem?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here it is again: what the heck does "Q" signify?

---

Queer

---

But that is a slur? Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, are all terms applied by homosexuals to themselves. "Queer" is derogatory, like "faggot", and other even less complimentary terms applied by heterosexuals. So why tack "Q" onto the acronym?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Yes, all the biblical, monotheistic religions. Mormonism is too, being a direct off-shoot of Protestant Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
And full circle we come, the "bigot card". Easy dismissal by disparaging the objector as unworthy of consideration; he's a bigot! End of discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That's because the MAJORITY of people tend to respect the feelings of their neighbors; and there is no reasonable objection to letting them have their special word reserved for what it has historically always signified: man and woman.

Sure we can use the word "marriage" to cover the lot of "domestic partnerships" suggested as being possible. But doing that pisses off an enormous segment of society.

<snip>

You don't accept that the feelings of a major segment of society are valid; rather like the same (mostly) segment being annoyed or angered by the blatant intrusion of Islamists near Ground Zero. But the REAL WORLD is perceived through feelings. Emotions inherent in your neighbors are real things. To continually dismiss them as "not thought through enough" is hubris. And it will bite you and all of us in the ass....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

---

Sorry for trying to inject a little levity.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
I'll see your sorry and raise you. My misinterpretation. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
Merlin,

You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?

Joanna
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

---

Oy, that's my job!
 

---

Posted by amber. (# 11142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?

Joanna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Merlin,

You have asserted several times that "the majority" want marriage ro remain defined as a relationship between one man and one woman. Can you provide a link to a report of a survey or something to back that up?

Joanna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The logic is inescapable. As I said, "marriage" is going to get co-opted by the GLBT(Q?)s, and nothing the heterosexual "moral majority" can say or do is going to save the word for any heterosexually limited definition: I just marvel at the fact that millions of dollars spent on the issue can be lost with the stroke of a judge's pen. That alone is indication enough that the writing is on the wall for the USA as a whole.

---

You used the scare quotes. I agree with them, BTW. Neither moral nor majority.

---

quote:

---

Co-opt? Overreaching a bit there. Opt-in, perhaps.

---

quote:

---

The bottom line is that you want to maintain your heterosexual privilege.

---

quote:

---

In the US, at least, the foundational principle of the constitution (all being equal before the law) supports my point of view.

---

quote:

---

Get over it and spend your energy and passion on reducing the divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples. That's the tragedy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...

---

Possibly but it is not a common one over here.

On the previous page you have referred to "an enormous segment of society" and "a major segment of society", which to my mind at least, implies more than the 52% who approved Prop. 8 - but perhaps this is another pond difference.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because, the majority want it that way. Since when is democracy supposed to be a tyranny of the minority over the majority? If the minority are not in any way inconvenienced or deprived of their rights, what right do they have to demand and obtain a legalese that the majority objects to?

---

That's a pretty big 'if' right there. The whole idea that the majority gets to dictate what the minority even calls themselves in order to maintain a distinction under law between the two groups seems to be at the same time petty and dangerous.

---

quote:

---

The whole nomenclature argument is such an apparent contradiction that it's almost always advanced either in bad faith or without much thought.

---

quote:

---

The argument is that everyone would be perfectly fine with gays, just so long as they don't get "uppity" and pretend that they're as good as straight folks. ...

---

quote:

---

...

I don't think it's reasonable to recycle a bunch of pro-Segregation arguments (just stick in 'gay' wherever it says 'negro' and you're good to go!) and then object when someone comments on the prejudice involved.

---

quote:

---

When you advance a position that we should pander to the sensibilities of bigots (people who, in your terms, get pissed off at the suggestion that gay unions are the same as their own marriages) you shouldn't be surprised when it's noticed that you're pandering to the sensibilities of bigots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Isn't it a maxim that "as California goes, so goes the rest of the USA"?...

---

Possibly but it is not a common one over here.

On the previous page you have referred to "an enormous segment of society" and "a major segment of society", which to my mind at least, implies more than the 52% who approved Prop. 8 - but perhaps this is another pond difference.

---

Don't confuse the actively voting percentage as the ONLY opinion still in objection. As I said, the main mass of people will throw in the towel, and fall squarely into the category of, "s/he who is convinced against their will is of the same opinion still". Why else do the main mass of voters not vote? Because they have no opinion? Of course, it is apathy and disillusionment and being demoralized by failure, etc....
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
There is something deeply weird going on in this thread and I have no idea what it is. Something I am just not getting.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
There is something deeply weird going on in this thread and I have no idea what it is. Something I am just not getting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by amber.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

---

Oy, that's my job!

---

Different corner.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

---

Ooh, science! You have made a prediction, and I can tell you how it actually worked out, because here in Canada we have gay marriage. Not "civil unions", marriage. And this is what has happened: People still get married. No one has knelt down and said, "Sweetheart, will you domestically partner with me but I can't ask you to marry me because teh gayz have the word?" People still get married, pay caterers, and have uncles get drunk at their weddings.

I'm not saying this doesn't cause me the occasional head-snap. Yesterday on local radio they were interviewing "[John Doe] and his husband" who had an inflatable pumpkin stolen from their Halloween yard display. It left me thinking that I hope they get their pumpkin back.
 

---

Posted by iGeek (# 777) on :
 

quote:

---

iGeek wrote:
Co-opt? Overreaching a bit there. Opt-in, perhaps.

---

quote:

---

MerlineTheMad wrote:
Well of course, saying it that way is an attempt to drive home that the majority opinion is just plain wrong.

---

quote:

---

MerlinTheMad wrote:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

---

quote:

---

iGeek wrote:
In the US, at least, the foundational principle of the constitution (all being equal before the law) supports my point of view.

---

quote:

---

MerlineTheMad wrote:
And mine as well. Democracy allows the majority to vote in what they WANT, so long as equal rights are not denied or taken away.

---

quote:

---

Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution

---

quote:

---

MerlinTheMad wrote:
"you" assert that marriage among heterosexuals (the only kind, still, in 90+% of the USA), is a broken mess.

---

quote:

---

MerlinTheMad wrote:
Since "you" continually point to your special love for each other, why not "divorce" yourselves from "marriage" altogether

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

---

Ooh, science! You have made a prediction, and I can tell you how it actually worked out, because here in Canada we have gay marriage. Not "civil unions", marriage. And this is what has happened: People still get married. No one has knelt down and said, "Sweetheart, will you domestically partner with me but I can't ask you to marry me because teh gayz have the word?" People still get married, pay caterers, and have uncles get drunk at their weddings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by amber.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...if you'll excuse me, I'll be rocking back and forth in the corner mumbling incoherently.

---

Oy, that's my job!

---

Different corner.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
There is currently some inequality in the laws that needs shoring up: to assure that homosexuals are not discriminated against. But that need does not admit a right to tyrannize the majority or any other minority.

---

This is what I thought of when imagining such a "tyrannizing" force.

---

 

---

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Time to inject a different perspective:

There's a Fundamental Wrong in Letting Some People Marry
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Horseman Bree
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
...

The non-sequitur here is that excluding same-sex couples from the institution somehow "protects" it. It's stated as a self-obvious truth but it isn't obvious and no-one seems to be able to connect the lines with any logic that would stand the light of legal review. It all comes down to "because I say so". And that's not good enough for a constitutional standard.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

MerlinTheMad wrote:
Since "you" continually point to your special love for each other, why not "divorce" yourselves from "marriage" altogether

---

Some gay folks hold that view. I don't. I'm a US citizen and I want to be treated equally under the law. So sorry that you find that threatens your privilege.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Time to inject a different perspective:

There's a Fundamental Wrong in Letting Some People Marry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I have already shared my prediction; that "marriage" will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs. There will be a fight (too late) by the heteros to strike all legalese use of "marriage"; but it will fail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
"'marriage' will be successfully taken control of by the GLBTQs" only if heteros take their marbles and go away in a huff because it isn't All About Them anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Merlin, why do you persist in ignoring the point that people have been making: That your predictions of what will happen to "marriage" if "gay marriage" is legalized have NOT OCCURRED in other countries where gay marriage IS legal?

It just hasn't happened!

---

Of course "[my] predictions" have occurred elsewhere. "Gay marriage" has become recognized as an equal right with heterosexual marriage; the word "marriage" remains the term by which this legal union is known; and any objection to the use of the word "marriage" didn't amount to anything. I've predicted that any such objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as doomed as Prop 8; and any fight to strike "marriage" utterly from the legalese will be too little too late and amount to nothing. "Marriage" is the word that will get used everywhere, as it is now.

I don't like it, but there it is.

All the objecting I've been doing, about the word "marriage" being co-opted, is fighting what I know is a lost battle. But then, I've always enjoyed joining lost causes when they are worthy....
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...

Why does it matter to you so much? You obviously married the sexual partner of your choice, and have remained committed to her. Why do you want to prevent other people from entering that commitment to each other?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
...
You've not given any kind of understandable description of what it means for marriage to be "taken control of".

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It would be very interesting to develop a comprehensive list of which countries recognise a religious wedding ceremony for legal/civil purposes, and which ones don't.

The Wikipedia articles on marriage and marriage law provide some hints, but not a comprehensive list. It does suggest that the model in the English-speaking world, fusing the two ceremonies into one, might be the LESS common model in 'Christian' countries.

I mention this because one of the things that often bothers me about this argument is the presentation of the current model as self-evident or inevitable. But there are features of that model that are either relatively recent inventions (the last few centuries) or have never existed in some parts of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merlin:
And to a huge segment of society, "marriage" means only one institution: man united to woman in the legal bonds of matrimony. That's all it has EVER meant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I've predicted that any such objection to the use of the word "marriage" is as doomed as Prop 8; and any fight to strike "marriage" utterly from the legalese will be too little too late and amount to nothing. "Marriage" is the word that will get used everywhere, as it is now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Here's what will happen: not being able to "save marriage" for the legalese, the majority will opt to refuse its use at all. If they can't have it, at least they can keep "you" from having it too. I predict that something as facile as "domestic partnership" will be what replaces "marriage" in the legalese.

---

Which of these diametrically opposed predictions is yours? Or has your "prediction" conveniently changed so that it now fits the reality to which I pointed?

Two things have occurred to me with the inception of this thread: (1) the changing nature of homophobia. Merlin has expressed opposition to the use of the word "marriage", but even he (depending on which of his predictions you think he means) thinks that it will become the law of the land. No one else on this thread, that I've noticed, has overtly spouted, "Teh gayz are ebil and you shoud all die!!!1!!one!!" It's a kinder, gentler oppression, now with 26 percent less vitriol. I'm not sure how much that matters to people on the receiving end of it, but it does seem less atrocious than it could be, or is in other fora. (2) This extensive argument is a way of keeping "you" "fornicators" (to borrow MerlintheMad's terminology) from that much more sinning by keeping you occupied online. If I were "you" I would consider taking immediate and creative action to rectify that
 

---

Posted by TonyK (# 35) on :
 
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

This thread seems to reached the stage of generating much heat but little light!

IMHO, it seems that there is little point in continuing -

BUT - we rarely close threads in Dead Horses: instead I am invoking a DH convention and declaring a 48 hour moratorium.

No more posts please for 2 full days from the date/time of this post - X-posters will be excused, of course

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
So can you provide some evidence to back up your assertions which I can take at face value?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merlin:
And to a huge segment of society, "marriage" means only one institution: man united to woman in the legal bonds of matrimony. That's all it has EVER meant.

---

Am I to assume that the answer to my question is No?
Or is it true as you have now told us three times that it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TonyK:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>

This thread seems to reached the stage of generating much heat but little light!

IMHO, it seems that there is little point in continuing -

BUT - we rarely close threads in Dead Horses: instead I am invoking a DH convention and declaring a 48 hour moratorium.

No more posts please for 2 full days from the date/time of this post - X-posters will be excused, of course

Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>

Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

---

Merlin,

I do not deny that historically marriage has only been between one man and one woman. The thing I want proof of is that a large majority of the US population currently believes that it should stay that way.
As Amber has pointed out near the top of this page, that is not the case over here.

Joanna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
But, but, but, historically since when? The "one-man-several-(or even many)-women" model has been a popular option for centuries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
If you contest the statement that the WORD "marriage" has always, and only, meant man and woman in the legal sense, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence to disprove the statement.

---

Merlin,

I do not deny that historically marriage has only been between one man and one woman. The thing I want proof of is that a large majority of the US population currently believes that it should stay that way.
As Amber has pointed out near the top of this page, that is not the case over here.

Joanna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:
But, it is changing.

---

Ask and I shall receive. Almost like reading my mind!

The wording vis-a-vis support for "gay marriage" goes:

"Do you think marriage between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

Now if I had been asked that question, as worded, I would say "Not recognized as valid". But if the question had been worded this way instead:

"Do you think [domestic partnerships] between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" I would have answered "Yes, just as valid as traditional marriages, and with the same rights"....
 

---

Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
...

iGeek,

Thanks for that. It's a shame they didn't specifically ask about marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I asserted back, that a dip below 50% against "gay marriage" isn't any indicator that a majority are not in fact against it; only that a proportion of those opposed have "thrown in the towel", seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We all know that the way a poll question is worded can skew the results. For instance: if I was asked: "Are you in favor of gay marriage"? My answer would be flat out "No". But if the question was worded this way: "Are you in favor of equal rights for homosexuals"? I would say "Yes"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
...seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...

---

But why fight it? That's what I don't get about your little one-man crusade here. OK, say the poor deluded queers falsely believe their relationships to be just the same as marriage. Say, by some mixture of corrupt lobbying tedious repitition they persuade apathetic American governments to recognise that in law.

So what? What harm does it do to you? You and your friends and relations can still be married in the good old way. What reason do you have for demanding so stridently that everyone else recogises marriage in exactly the same way you do?

If two men living round the corner from you falsely consider themselves to be married, how does that hurt you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have to point out here that there are plenty of heterosexuals that get married for less-than-"ideal" reasons, too. (Some even get married and divorced in the same month! Or week! Because they can!)

Do their marriages hurt yours somehow, MtM?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have to point out here that there are plenty of heterosexuals that get married for less-than-"ideal" reasons, too. (Some even get married and divorced in the same month! Or week! Because they can!)

Do their marriages hurt yours somehow, MtM?

---

Yes. Because promiscuity hurts relationships. The net effect of cheap sex weakens our moral base: children see bad examples of sexuality, especially on the Net - a veritable flood of voyeurism and virtual orgies a click away, encouraging them to contribute, via cellphone video. When their parents and siblings and other role models cheapen marriage by using it to "legalize" their sexual addictions, that is absolutely damaging to the institution of marriage. How can any couple have a thriving relationship if one or both of them treat the deepest physical bonding aspect like a mere plaything: selfishly indulging it without any more consideration than a deliberately temporary joining of "consenting adults"?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
"Little one-man crusade", really? I don't feel alone, not by a long stretch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I asserted back, that a dip below 50% against "gay marriage" isn't any indicator that a majority are not in fact against it; only that a proportion of those opposed have "thrown in the towel", seeing "gay marriage" as inevitable, so why fight it?...

---

Merlin,

Can you please either

a) provide some evidence to back up this assertion (preferably with an explanation of why people are lying to opinion pollsters)

or

b) stop writing about "a huge segment of society" and accept that it is a small majority who object to using the word "marriage" to describe officially recognised relationships between two people of the same sex.

Thanks,

Joanna

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
We all know that the way a poll question is worded can skew the results. For instance: if I was asked: "Are you in favor of gay marriage"? My answer would be flat out "No". But if the question was worded this way: "Are you in favor of equal rights for homosexuals"? I would say "Yes"....

---

It's the fact that you (and many others) think those answers can be consistent with each other that leads us into the kind of territory this thread is inhabiting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.

---

• First Interim Report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission finds New Jersey's civil union law "is not clear to the general public" and "creates a second-class status" for those who have filed for civil unions.
• New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission Final Report cites numerous cases of precisely the opposite of what you assert.
• Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling on Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health Justice Palmer writes in the majority opinion: "Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal..."
• California Supreme Court Ruling on In re: Marriage Cases "[R]etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples."
• Report of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection finds civil unions do not provide the fairness and equality they were intended to offer same-sex couples and their families.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

I suspect that if a vote were taken in California today on whether or not to call non-heterosexual partnerships "marriage", that no less than 52% would limit the word to "a man and a woman". How is this NOT a "huge segment of society"?...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.

---

This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.

You can talk about equality of legal rights until the cows come home. That's not the point. The sole reason for retaining separate language is so that people who don't like gay couples can keep saying things (out loud or in their head) like 'they're not really married though', or 'they're not really a couple'.

It is all about the symbolism. A symbolism that says we're not really like you and that our relationships aren't as significant or important as yours.

As it's the symbolism that is so important to you, the least you can do is acknowledge that the symbolism is important to US as well. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell us to focus on legal equality while at the same time valuing the symbolism of the word 'marriage' more than the legal rights attached to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
If you want equality for gay couples, that includes using the same language for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued

---

quote:

---

The social benefits to legal recognition are equivalent, so the rights should be equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Both are equally opposed to people like Merlin who would pragmatically concede 'equal rights' while contending for a symbolic legal inequality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
I have to point out here that there are plenty of heterosexuals that get married for less-than-"ideal" reasons, too. (Some even get married and divorced in the same month! Or week! Because they can!)

Do their marriages hurt yours somehow, MtM?

---

Yes. Because promiscuity hurts relationships. The net effect of cheap sex weakens our moral base: children see bad examples of sexuality, especially on the Net - a veritable flood of voyeurism and virtual orgies a click away, encouraging them to contribute, via cellphone video. When their parents and siblings and other role models cheapen marriage by using it to "legalize" their sexual addictions, that is absolutely damaging to the institution of marriage. How can any couple have a thriving relationship if one or both of them treat the deepest physical bonding aspect like a mere plaything: selfishly indulging it without any more consideration than a deliberately temporary joining of "consenting adults"?...

---

That's not the answer to the question, though.

Do their marriages hurt yours, MtM?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Merlin doesn't want "equality" for gay couples. He doesn't think that gay relationships are equal to, or "as good as" straight ones.

He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued, and Merlin has never remotely suggested that he wants that. He wants gay relationships to be recognised as different and inferior to marriage, albeit similarly regulated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iGeek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.

---

Not true.

• First Interim Report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission finds New Jersey's civil union law "is not clear to the general public" and "creates a second-class status" for those who have filed for civil unions.
• New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission Final Report cites numerous cases of precisely the opposite of what you assert.
• Connecticut Supreme Court Ruling on Kerrigan & Mock v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health Justice Palmer writes in the majority opinion: "Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal..."
• California Supreme Court Ruling on In re: Marriage Cases "[R]etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples."
• Report of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection finds civil unions do not provide the fairness and equality they were intended to offer same-sex couples and their families.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued

---

But you can't legislate that, and I don't see how expanding "marriage" to include gay couples (which, by the way, I am in favour of) would bring that about more than partnership-type arrangements. At least, I think it should be clarified how that works.

---

quote:

---

But it's my understanding from this thread that in Britain, at least, the legal rights are equivalent.

---

quote:

---

You've totally lost me here. What is a legal inequality be symbolic of?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.

---

This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.
...

It is all about the symbolism. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

I suspect that if a vote were taken in California today on whether or not to call non-heterosexual partnerships "marriage", that no less than 52% would limit the word to "a man and a woman". How is this NOT a "huge segment of society"?...

---

Chances are excellent that that statement is not true. There is a large number of people who have since stated they would either change their vote or others who were confused by the wording on the ballot initiative.

---

quote:

---

There were also many who would have voted against the proposition who stayed home because they assumed that this being a more tolerant California than when the earlier ballot initiative the initiative was guaranteed to be voted down.

---

quote:

---

Another lesson in why it's important to actually go out and vote and not assume what the results will be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
If you want equality for gay couples, that includes using the same language for us.

---

Merlin doesn't want "equality" for gay couples. He doesn't think that gay relationships are equal to, or "as good as" straight ones.

He does want "equal rights" - but equal rights aren't all there is to equality. Equality would include being equally esteemed, equally valued, and Merlin has never remotely suggested that he wants that. He wants gay relationships to be recognised as different and inferior to marriage, albeit similarly regulated.

---

quote:

---

It's probably a consistent position to take (albeit incoherently expressed). If there is a social good involved in the legal recognition of domestic partnerships, then there is a reasonable argument for giving equivalent legal recognition to whatever partnerships de facto exist, even if some are fully approved of, and others not so much. The social benefits to legal recognition are equivalent, so the rights should be equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Where Merlin appears to me to be mistaken is that he thinks that this position - which he would endorse - matches the 'public' demands of the homosexual agendaists, but is being used by them as a cover or facade for something else.

Of course, few or no gays are campaigning on the basis that their loves and lives are deficient and second-rate, but that the public interest would be served by recognising their partnerships. The whole point is that (whether they care about the word 'marriage' or not) gay people aren't deficient or second-rate. Those of them who would be happy to stick with "civil partnerships" (a majority of my RL acquaintance - no idea how representative that is of UK gays in general) are happy with that because they don't think they need official use of the word "marriage" to be fully accepted. Those who are not happy sticking with civil partnerships think that they do. It may be a difference of opinion - or a difference of tactics - but one is not a facade for the other. Both are fundamentally positions demanding social equality.

---

quote:

---

Both are equally opposed to people like Merlin who would pragmatically concede 'equal rights' while contending for a symbolic legal inequality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
stealing the symbol that "marriage" means to heterosexuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You can assert "not true", but the fact is that this divisive issue is still too new: ANY legalizing of "civil unions" to include same-sex unions is so new that nothing can be determined as to eventual outcome vis-a-vis public education and sentiment regarding equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Nothing hurts the hypothetical "gay couple around the corner" or impinges the slightest upon their equal rights, by reserving "marriage" to mean "man and woman"; and "domestic partnerships" to mean everything else.

---

This is the heart of the issue, right here. iGeek has already given you the links, but let me say to you, on a personal level, that telling me that I'm not hurt by the distinction is telling me how to feel.
...

It is all about the symbolism. ...

---

So your feelings are special? I can reverse what you said and it applies just as well to the heterosexual VAST MAJORITY that you have to live with. What about OUR symbol? If you take it away, to gratify your feelings about symbolism, now does that benefit you at all?...

---