patrick.net

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

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

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

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

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

56

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 6:25am

Rew says

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

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

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

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

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

That boat doesn't float. False argument.

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

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

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

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

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

57 edvard2 2013 Apr 5, 6:34am

zzyzzx says

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

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

58 edvard2 2013 Apr 5, 6:36am

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

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

59 mell 2013 Apr 5, 6:38am

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

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

60 edvard2 2013 Apr 5, 6:39am

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

61

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 6:46am

Rew says

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

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

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

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

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

62 edvard2 2013 Apr 5, 6:50am

looks like you drank too much kool-aid

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

63 mell 2013 Apr 5, 6:52am

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

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

64

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 6:57am

Rew says

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

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

You are very progressive. I salute that.

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

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

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

65

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:04am

mell says

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

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

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

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

66

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:06am

Rew says

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

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

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

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

67 mell 2013 Apr 5, 7:11am

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

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

68

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:15am

Rew says

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

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

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

A very zen way to look at life.

69 socal2 2013 Apr 5, 7:20am

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

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

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

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

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

70

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:20am

Rew says

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

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

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

Wait, who decided what was deviant when?

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

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

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

71 mell 2013 Apr 5, 7:22am

mell says

Rew says

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

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

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

A very zen way to look at life.

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

72

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:24am

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

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

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

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

73

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:27am

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

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

74

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 7:29am

mell says

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

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

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

75 mell 2013 Apr 5, 7:38am

mell says

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

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

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

76

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 8:16am

Rew says

mell says

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

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

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

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

77

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 8:36am

The Original Bankster says

Rew says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

78 likeu 2013 Apr 5, 9:06am

I support gay rights. I agree that what you do in your bed is your business. Gay people should have same right as the others. What I don't get is overloading of the word "marriage". Why insist on calling it marriage? If you want social acceptance you cannot and should not want to hide your relationship. So you need a word which describes the relationship exactly.
I propose adding 2 more words to the English language: Lerry and Gayrry. So you are either lerried, gayrried or married.

79

curious2 2013 Apr 5, 9:15am

likeu says

I propose adding 2 more words to the English language: Lerry and Gayrry.

Same-sex couples have been getting married for a very long time outside the USA (FKA "the land of the free"), and none of those places saw any need to change their language, or their Constitutions, to stop calling it that. The real question is why insist on not calling it marriage, and the answer is because that insistence kept certain people voting for Republicans' deficit-driven wars all over the world, but now most Americans support same-sex marriage, which is why the Democratic party signed on to support it.

80

Dan8267 2013 Apr 5, 9:16am

I also think most of what LGBT is promoting is perverted and sick.

Ah, but what exactly to you think is perverted and sick, and more importantly, why?

81

curious2 2013 Apr 5, 9:17am

Dan8267 says

why?

Try clicking his website link below his avatar, and you'll see. Some people need to blame others for their own misery, so they need "others" to H8. It is also related to their insecurities and failure: Gene Hackman's character in Mississippi Burning sums it up when he asks rhetorically, "If you ain't better than a [pick your choice of word from bankster's website], who are you better than?"

82

Dan8267 2013 Apr 5, 9:32am

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

why?

Try clicking his website link below his avatar, and you'll see. Some people need to blame others for their own misery, so they need "others" to H8.

Damn, that's fucked up. Why would someone use the URL http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=nigger,faggot as their "My Website" link in a forum. Granted, it's obfuscated by a URL rewriter (shortener), but it's still such a pointless thing to do.

But you are correct in that it reveals a lot about his bigotry. And it's no coincidence that it's always the same group of Americans who
- were for slavery
- were against letting blacks own property
- were against letting blacks vote
- were against letting women own property
- were against letting women vote
- were against interracial marriages
- are against same-sex marriages
- are for all the wars over the past 13 years
- are for torture
- are for warrantless wiretaps
- are for removing the right to Habeas Corpus
- are for drone strikes
- are for assassinations

And it always seems to come down to this map...

Green is good. Red and brown are bad.

In fact, the above map and many virtually identical to it, have pretty much describe the morality and lack thereof in America from 1700 to 2013. Some parts of the country simply haven't changed in three hundred years.

Now, I don't know if The Original Bankster comes from those red and brown areas, but there's a pretty good chance his family roots do.

83

MershedPerturders 2013 Apr 5, 10:07am

why would anyone listen to anything from a bunch of angry anonymous people on the internet?

84 socal2 2013 Apr 5, 10:07am

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

I believe over 80% of US marriages end up producing kids and future tax payers. The vast majority of marriages are done by young and fertile couples.

I don't think it is a strong argument to point to a tiny minority of elderly, gay or straight couples who can't (or won't) procreate as enough reason to change the historic definition of marriage.

85 socal2 2013 Apr 5, 10:10am

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

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

86

Dan8267 2013 Apr 5, 10:29am

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

87

evilmonkeyboy 2013 Apr 5, 10:29am

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

What if my religion says that gay people can get married?

I guess what you meant by religion was your religious views. As for marriage being about procreation.... tell that to the millions of people born out of wedlock and all the unwanted children that are unwanted by heterosexual people.

88 socal2 2013 Apr 5, 10:40am

Dan8267 says

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

As I pointed out earlier, the State does have a vested interest in subsidizing stable families to raise future tax payers. That is the ONLY reason the government is in the marriage business.

89

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 10:48am

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

How about Civil Unions?

Keep marriage about procreation and people's personal religion.

Then get rid of all laws and contracts that use the word "marriage" and replace all such laws and contracts with the term "civil union". That includes tax filing status, survivor benefits, adoption forms, employee benefits, immigration status, etc.

As I said many times, the whole problem is that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business in the first place. There should never have been any laws regarding marriage or any secular recognition of marriage in the first place. And there should be no "married" tax filing status either.

This exactly. But if it is here to stay, then you better extend to a reasonable section of the population, and it cannot be handed out in a discriminatory manner.

90

Rew 2013 Apr 5, 10:53am