Homosexual campaign: Could someone explain this?

[death dealer]

No, our voices are not being heard, by those that can help us.

You mean like the Democratic Party?

[dbackjon]

No, our voices are not being heard, by those that can help us.

You mean like the Democratic Party?

For starters, yes.

[Ibanez]

Equality always wins out in the end - because it is the morally right thing to do.

I would say that, in the modern context of our culture, radical egalitarianism always wins out. There is no problem with treating people equally as far as marriage has gone. Marriage has been considered to be an arrangement between one member of one sex and one member of another sex. Anyone who wished to particpate in it could and can participate in it. If you, tomorrow, found a member of the opposite sex who would agree to marry you you could enter into the arrangement in any state in this country just like anybody else can. There is no discrimination. Everybody is given the same option. The fact that some would prefer not to exercise it does not mean they're being discriminated against.

To use an illustration that has been used very frequently but is nevertheless valid: A homosexual is no more discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves members of opposite sexes than someone who would like to enter into polygamy is discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves just two people. Any would-be polyamist can enter into the same arrangement that anybody else can. They just can't enter into an arrangement that they'd like to...and nobody else can either. Everybody is given the same opportunity.

Finally, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. They are not equal states. One, heterosexuality, is the normal state while the other, homosexuality, is disfunctional.

JSO, you're just jealous of all the buttfucking and muff diving.

[JohnStOnge]

Actually, I agree with most of this. I just don't see where the argument to not recognize gay marriage comes in.

It's not an argument against homosexual marriage per se. It's an argument that recognizing marriage as a union between one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex to the exclusion of other arrangements is not discrimination against individuals.

I've used this illustration before but I'll use it again: Say I declare that anyone who wants can have a free steak. Someone prefers chicken. I say, "No, the offer is for free steak." And I don't give that person any chicken. Of course the steak is available to them if they want it.

I have not discriminated against that person. I have made something available to anybody who wants it and they have decided they want something else.

Right now the opportunity of a member of one sex to be married in any State to one member of another is available to anybody who wants it and can find a member of the opposite sex to enter into the arrangement with them. There is no discrimination and there is no lack of equality of opportunity. The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is.

Everybody has the same option available to them. The fact that they would like other options does not mean they are being discriminated against or not being treated equally.

[Ivytalk]

Right now the opportunity of a member of one sex to be married in any State to one member of another is available to anybody who wants it and can find a member of the opposite sex to enter into the arrangement with them. There is no discrimination and there is no lack of equality of opportunity. The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex, or eight dogs,at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is.

FIFY!

C.mon, John, lighten up. I have the sense that if I ran into you at the Plaquemines Parish Jambalaya and Crawfish Boil, you and I could knock back a few Fabachers/Jax and have a good time.

[youngterrier]

Actually, I agree with most of this. I just don't see where the argument to not recognize gay marriage comes in.

It's not an argument against homosexual marriage per se. It's an argument that recognizing marriage as a union between one member of one sex and one member of the opposite sex to the exclusion of other arrangements is not discrimination against individuals.

I've used this illustration before but I'll use it again: Say I declare that anyone who wants can have a free steak. Someone prefers chicken. I say, "No, the offer is for free steak." And I don't give that person any chicken. Of course the steak is available to them if they want it.

I have not discriminated against that person. I have made something available to anybody who wants it and they have decided they want something else.

Right now the opportunity of a member of one sex to be married in any State to one member of another is available to anybody who wants it and can find a member of the opposite sex to enter into the arrangement with them. There is no discrimination and there is no lack of equality of opportunity. The absence of opportunity to marry a member of one's own sex is not a denial of equality any more than the absence of oppoprtunity to marry six members of the opposite sex at the same time is. For that matter it's not a denial of equal opportunity any more than the opportunity to marry a dog is.

Everybody has the same option available to them. The fact that they would like other options does not mean they are being discriminated against or not being treated equally.

I say again, Marriage is a social bond determined by the people, the fact that the state's recognition is based on one social group's (or religion's) definition of marriage and the government is not respecting the views of others is sickening.

It's not like buying a steak, more like buying peanut butter when you're allergic...and only the people who get the peanut butter can use the benefits (the bathroom)...essentially saying that if you don't conform to our values you will be treated differently.

edit: when we deal with something like marriage, something whose definition has been disputed pending on cultures, it isn't equal treatment when the government picks one social group/religion's definition over another

[BDKJMU]

the fact that the state's recognition is based on one social group's (or religion's) definition of marriage and the government is not respecting the views of others is sickening.

Yep, its sickening that the states recognition is based on one social group/religion's definition of marriage and not respecting the views of others like the polygamists is sickening.

when we deal with something like marriage, something whose definition has been disputed pending on cultures, it isn't equal treatment when the government picks one social group/religion's definition over another

Yep, its isn't equal treatment when the govt has picked one social group/religions definition over the polygamists.

Your logic opens up a nice pandora's box.

[youngterrier]

the fact that the state's recognition is based on one social group's (or religion's) definition of marriage and the government is not respecting the views of others is sickening.

Yep, its sickening that the states recognition is based on one social group/religion's definition of marriage and not respecting the views of others like the polygamists is sickening.

when we deal with something like marriage, something whose definition has been disputed pending on cultures, it isn't equal treatment when the government picks one social group/religion's definition over another

Yep, its isn't equal treatment when the govt has picked one social group/religions definition over the polygamists.

Your logic opens up a nice pandora's box.

did you not read my first post in this thread? the reason the government doesnt recognize polygomists is because, theoretically, all the tax payers could get in one big marriage and thus the benefits evolved would be irrelevant. what paradox is that?

[BDKJMU]

Yep, its sickening that the states recognition is based on one social group/religion's definition of marriage and not respecting the views of others like the polygamists is sickening.



Yep, its isn't equal treatment when the govt has picked one social group/religions definition over the polygamists.

Your logic opens up a nice pandora's box.

did you not read my first post in this thread? the reason the government doesnt recognize polygomists is because, theoretically, all the tax payers could get in one big marriage and thus the benefits evolved would be irrelevant. what paradox is that?

Then you contradicted yourself. You stated the govt can't pick one social group's/religion's definition of marriage over another as it isn't equal treatment. Using THAT logic you then would have to allow polygamy.

[youngterrier]

did you not read my first post in this thread? the reason the government doesnt recognize polygomists is because, theoretically, all the tax payers could get in one big marriage and thus the benefits evolved would be irrelevant. what paradox is that?

Then you contradicted yourself. You stated the govt can't pick one social group's/religion's definition of marriage over another as it isn't equal treatment. Using THAT logic you then would have to allow polygamy.

Again, you didn't read my first post. I don't think government should be involved with marriage at all. Government can not limit marriage because the differing views. I'm OK with polygamy, but government doesn't have the $$$ to pay for the mentioned nightmare scenario. I vouch for gays because they take a lot of $h!t and they are eligible for the tax benefits that come with being married, whereas we can't afford Polygamy and neither a child nor an animal pay taxes

[native]

FIFY!

C.mon, John, lighten up. I have the sense that if I ran into you at the Plaquemines Parish Jambalaya and Crawfish Boil, you and I could knock back a few Fabachers/Jax and have a good time.

I recommend Abita over Jax.

[Purple For Life]

Personally I don't care if queers are able to marry. It doesn't bother me one bit. For Chrissakes my own brother is gay and I sure as hell wish he would settle down, get married and quit bringing a different homo to Thanksgiving every year; I can't keep up with all their names. I'll just call them all Lance so I can be right 50% of the time.

In all seriousness (not my brother... he really is gay) I don't think it is anybody's goddamn business what happens in somebody else's family. If you're worried about the erosion of the American family then you're not spending enough time thinking about your own. Hell, if gays were allowed to legally marry then we'd likely hear a lot less about it on TV because it would be old hat.

If gays are that anxious to add another misery to their lives (not to mention another pathway to wealth redistribution) then they should damn well be allowed to. The government has too much control over the institution as it is. I was so pissed that I had to get a damn wedding license I was tempted to see if my wife wanted to just declare a common-law marriage.

I'll arrange my own family in the way my wife and I think it should be and we'll stay the fvck out of everybody else's business and expect everybody to stay the fvck out of ours.

[JohnStOnge]

It's not like buying a steak, more like buying peanut butter when you're allergic...and only the people who get the peanut butter can use the benefits (the bathroom)...essentially saying that if you don't conform to our values you will be treated differently.

No, it's not saying you're being treated differently at all. The fact that you respond differently doesn't mean you're being treated differently. So use peanut butter if you want. Maybe there's a good reason why you don't want peanut butter. Maybe you're allergic.

But, still, if someone says, "Free peanut butter for anybody who wants it" everybody's being treated the same. The fact that you don't want it, whether there's a good reason for that or not, doesn't mean you're being treated differently.

[youngterrier]

It's not like buying a steak, more like buying peanut butter when you're allergic...and only the people who get the peanut butter can use the benefits (the bathroom)...essentially saying that if you don't conform to our values you will be treated differently.

No, it's not saying you're being treated differently at all. The fact that you respond differently doesn't mean you're being treated differently. So use peanut butter if you want. Maybe there's a good reason why you don't want peanut butter. Maybe you're allergic.

But, still, if someone says, "Free peanut butter for anybody who wants it" everybody's being treated the same. The fact that you don't want it, whether there's a good reason for that or not, doesn't mean you're being treated differently.

it's discrimination because it shows favoritism

favoritism does not = equality

[JohnStOnge]

say again, Marriage is a social bond determined by the people, the fact that the state's recognition is based on one social group's (or religion's) definition of marriage and the government is not respecting the views of others is sickening.

I think it's safe to say that state recognition of marriage will always be limited by some definable social group's definition. If you're going to say there's going to be marriage you're going to define it in some way. And if you define it in some way there are going to be excluded situations.

But I could go for getting government out of it entirely and I've posted that before on other boards. Really, marriage has already been pretty much destroyed in this country anyway. It's not that there aren't some good marriages. But they are relatively rare and it's not the institution it used to be whether we recognize something as sick as homosexual marriage or not.

I think the whole point of marriage was to create a stable situation for reproduction and child rearing. The fact that some heterosexual couples are not capable of procreating does not change that. That's the point of the institution. And of course that point makes the idea of talking about homosexual marriage as a general proposition ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason to have that included in the institution. But the idea of a stable situation where one member of one sex paired with one member of the other, procreation occurred, and they stayed together at least throughout child-rearing was lost long ago regardless.

[kalm]

say again, Marriage is a social bond determined by the people, the fact that the state's recognition is based on one social group's (or religion's) definition of marriage and the government is not respecting the views of others is sickening.

I think it's safe to say that state recognition of marriage will always be limited by some definable social group's definition. If you're going to say there's going to be marriage you're going to define it in some way. And if you define it in some way there are going to be excluded situations.

But I could go for getting government out of it entirely and I've posted that before on other boards. Really, marriage has already been pretty much destroyed in this country anyway. It's not that there aren't some good marriages. But they are relatively rare and it's not the institution it used to be whether we recognize something as sick as homosexual marriage or not.

I think the whole point of marriage was to create a stable situation for reproduction and child rearing. The fact that some heterosexual couples are not capable of procreating does not change that. That's the point of the institution. And of course that point makes the idea of talking about homosexual marriage as a general proposition ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason to have that included in the institution. But the idea of a stable situation where one member of one sex paired with one member of the other, procreation occurred, and they stayed together at least throughout child-rearing was lost long ago regardless.

Define sick.

[JohnStOnge]

it's discrimination because it shows favoritism

favoritism does not = equality

It does not show favoritism. When you offer something to anybody who wants it you are not showing favoritism.

Besies, why should we treat homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships when they're not the same thing? You're hitting upon one of the biggest problems with the radical egalitarianism that afflicts our culture: We insist on tryinig to make things that are not, by nature, equal equal.

[native]

Personally I don't care if queers are able to marry. It doesn't bother me one bit. For Chrissakes my own brother is gay and I sure as hell wish he would settle down, get married and quit bringing a different homo to Thanksgiving every year; I can't keep up with all their names. I'll just call them all Lance so I can be right 50% of the time.

In all seriousness (not my brother... he really is gay) I don't think it is anybody's goddamn business what happens in somebody else's family. If you're worried about the erosion of the American family then you're not spending enough time thinking about your own. Hell, if gays were allowed to legally marry then we'd likely hear a lot less about it on TV because it would be old hat.

If gays are that anxious to add another misery to their lives (not to mention another pathway to wealth redistribution) then they should damn well be allowed to. The government has too much control over the institution as it is. I was so pissed that I had to get a damn wedding license I was tempted to see if my wife wanted to just declare a common-law marriage.

I'll arrange my own family in the way my wife and I think it should be and we'll stay the fvck out of everybody else's business and expect everybody to stay the fvck out of ours.

Well said, CID. Your essay is the basis of liberty.

My problem is that the hyper-political LGBT lobby does not stay out of anyone's business and they sometimes use tax dollars to intrude. They are especially egregious in their legal attacks on organizations like the Boy Scouts and their indoctrination of public school curricula and teachers.

[JohnStOnge]

Define sick

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sick

I think I'd pick definitions 4a and 4b as best fitting this situation. 1 kind of fits it as a general matter as well.

Again, it's absurd that we're even talking about this; an illustration of the extent to which western civilization is degrading. It is absolutelyl ridiculous to be talking about two members of the same sex being recognized as "married," much less actually institutionalizing it in several states already. You're takling about institutionalizing a tragic misdirection of a basic biological drive.

[native]

I would say that, in the modern context of our culture, radical egalitarianism always wins out. There is no problem with treating people equally as far as marriage has gone. Marriage has been considered to be an arrangement between one member of one sex and one member of another sex. Anyone who wished to particpate in it could and can participate in it. If you, tomorrow, found a member of the opposite sex who would agree to marry you you could enter into the arrangement in any state in this country just like anybody else can. There is no discrimination. Everybody is given the same option. The fact that some would prefer not to exercise it does not mean they're being discriminated against.

To use an illustration that has been used very frequently but is nevertheless valid: A homosexual is no more discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves members of opposite sexes than someone who would like to enter into polygamy is discriminated against by the idea that marriage involves just two people. Any would-be polyamist can enter into the same arrangement that anybody else can. They just can't enter into an arrangement that they'd like to...and nobody else can either. Everybody is given the same opportunity.

Finally, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing. They are not equal states. One, heterosexuality, is the normal state while the other, homosexuality, is disfunctional.

Marriage is a Social bond determined by the people, the idea that marriage has always been "one man and one woman" for all time is total BS--it has always been defined by the people and the fact that our government will show favoritism to one viewpoint and not any others is sickening (and the fact that they are even involved in the recognition of marriage is even more sickening), why should the government endorse a marriage that only meets the context of christian marriages? Because we were founded on Christian values? So we make laws based on something that isn't in the constitution, but rather what the founders would have wanted? In that case I think we are constitutionally inclined to bring back slavery, and deprive the right to vote from minorities and women. You state polygamy as an example of a discriminated marriage--I have no problem with the idea of government recognizing polygamy as a matter of fact centuries ago polygamy was a valid marriage (King David had a bunch of wives, in the Koran there is a verse supposedly endorsing polygamy)..the reason our government doesn't endorse it is because of the tax benefits involved, theoretically speaking all the taxpayers could get in one big marriage and it would be a futile tax credit/cut.

Yours is very articulate and well considered post full of substance and historical perspective, Young Terrier!

We can indeed define marriage and relationships as we see fit. I happen to think the modern Christian version, as you call it, serves society well, better than any other version, along with all the humans who live in society. But many disagree with me. Many - perhaps most on this thread - favor a libertine definition of marriage with no holds barred.

My opinion of those who hold that view is that they are unwilling to think beyond that tingling sensation in their private parts. But I digress.

The Judeo-Christian version of values has deep historical roots in our successful history as a nation. The LGBT "progressive" version does not and goes well beyond a yearning for liberty in its attacks on traditional culture and history. The LGBT agenda includes harmful and destructive revisionist history unrelated to individual liberty or the legal and moral nature of relationships of consenting adults.

Yet, as a lover of the Constitution and liberty, I am willing to accept most of the gay agenda as relates to personal liberty.

Here are the parts I am unwilling to accept:
-Teaching the LGBT agenda in schools below the college level
-Spending any tax dollars on the LGBT agenda
-Wasting any public time or resources on harmful LGBT lawsuits like attacks on the Boy Scouts

[dbackjon]

Please define:

-Teaching the LGBT agenda in schools below the college level
-Spending any tax dollars on the LGBT agenda
-Wasting any public time or resources on harmful LGBT lawsuits like attacks on the Boy Scouts

What is this LGBT agenda?

Boy Scouts can discriminate, as a private organization. They should not, however, expect to get any reduced rent or other special priveldges at PUBLIC AREAS. That is the point of contention. Why should MY TAX DOLLARS go to give benefits to a group that EXCLUDES a segment of the population?

[Ibanez]

it's discrimination because it shows favoritism

favoritism does not = equality

It does not show favoritism. When you offer something to anybody who wants it you are not showing favoritism.

Besies, why should we treat homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships when they're not the same thing? You're hitting upon one of the biggest problems with the radical egalitarianism that afflicts our culture: We insist on tryinig to make things that are not, by nature, equal equal.

Who are you to deny anything, to anyone, on the basis of how they love? Just because 2 women love each other does not mean that shouldn't have the oppurtunity to be married. They are not equating a Gay marriage to a Straight Marriage. They want the equal oppurtunity. If you deny them that, then I'm sure we can think of a few oppurtunites we can deny you based on your skin color, hair color, foot size, etc... We have lawas, voted on by elected officials, to maintain social order, defend, etc... We should not dictate personal lives and deny things like this.

[YoUDeeMan]

They should not, however, expect to get any reduced rent or other special priveldges at PUBLIC AREAS. That is the point of contention. Why should MY TAX DOLLARS go to give benefits to a group that EXCLUDES a segment of the population?

Agreed.

So, as a white male, why should my tax dollars go to give benefits to a group that EXCLUDES a segment of the population? Why should benefits go towards helping, exclusively, minorities?

I'll be waiting.

[Ibanez]

Please define:

-Teaching the LGBT agenda in schools below the college level
-Spending any tax dollars on the LGBT agenda
-Wasting any public time or resources on harmful LGBT lawsuits like attacks on the Boy Scouts

What is this LGBT agenda?

Boy Scouts can discriminate, as a private organization. They should not, however, expect to get any reduced rent or other special priveldges at PUBLIC AREAS. That is the point of contention. Why should MY TAX DOLLARS go to give benefits to a group that EXCLUDES a segment of the population?

So you don't want to pay for Medicare or Medicaid? Jon, your tax dollars go to so many programs of exclusion. As I told D1b, every group on earth discriminates in some way. You don't see fat ballerina's, slow base ball players, white leaders of the NAACP.

[mainejeff]

Please define:

-Teaching the LGBT agenda in schools below the college level
-Spending any tax dollars on the LGBT agenda
-Wasting any public time or resources on harmful LGBT lawsuits like attacks on the Boy Scouts

What is this LGBT agenda?

Boy Scouts can discriminate, as a private organization. They should not, however, expect to get any reduced rent or other special priveldges at PUBLIC AREAS. That is the point of contention. Why should MY TAX DOLLARS go to give benefits to a group that EXCLUDES a segment of the population?

So you don't want to pay for Medicare or Medicaid? Jon, your tax dollars go to so many programs of exclusion. As I told D1b, every group on earth discriminates in some way. You don't see fat ballerina's, slow base ball players, white leaders of the NAACP.

How is playing baseball or being a member of the NAACP equal to being able to enter into marriage recognized by our government and sharing in the special financial and other privileges that legalized marriage entails?????