The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Skateguy]

:roll:

Did you even read what I wrote?

It doesn't usually happen. Name some incidents of this occurring in any of the countries which have legalized same sex marriage.

Gay marriage didn't use to happen either, now did it. Men are Men, and should have equal rights under the Law. Sexual preference should not even be on the table. Equal is equal. Will celibate people now want special rights also?? Or should the same rights cover all, regardless if they a sexual beings or not. Male is Male--everything else is personal choice.

 

[CriticalThought]

Question: Why wasn't he a citizen?

Answer: He was the property of his master.

Result: You're wrong.

Very well. Let's just hope that the consequences of the Supreme Court overturning DOMA are more like Loving v. Virginia rather than Dred Scott v. Sandford. Fortunately for both same sex marriage and interracial marriage, there is this thing called the 14th amendment and its Equal Protection Clause. Dred Scott did not have the benefit of the 14th amendment.

 

[CriticalThought]

Gay marriage didn't use to happen either, now did it. Men are Men, and should have equal rights under the Law. Sexual preference should not even be on the table. Equal is equal. Will celibate people now want special rights also?? Or should the same rights cover all, regardless if they a sexual beings or not. Male is Male--everything else is personal choice.

If you want to advocate for complete equality, whereby straight guys can marry straight guys, then feel free. I'm advocating on behalf of gays and lesbians for reasons beyond equality. You may have your work cut out for you even if same sex marriage passes, because none of the countries that have legalized same sex marriage have had lots of straight men lining up to marry each other.

 

[Skateguy]

If you want to advocate for complete equality, whereby straight guys can marry straight guys, then feel free. I'm advocating on behalf of gays and lesbians for reasons beyond equality. You may have your work cut out for you even if same sex marriage passes, because none of the countries that have legalized same sex marriage have had lots of straight men lining up to marry each other.

"Beyond Equality"--strange statement. So special privilege is at the heart of your movement then, and not just equal rights under the Law??---I was born Equal to anyone, and have tried to improve on that, as best as I could, with my very limited resources. But I would never support legislation, that gave me a Superior position to any one else. cause it just ain't sportsman like. I believe in an even playing field. where all are considered equal in the eyes of the Law. As far as what other Countries do for supper or anything else they choose to do , well that is up to them. I'm a Texan, and an American, --so that is my only focus.

 

[CriticalThought]

"Beyond Equality"--strange statement. So special privilege is at the heart of your movement then, and not just equal rights under the Law??---I was born Equal to anyone, and have tried to improve on that, as best as I could, with my very limited resources. But I would never support legislation, that gave me a Superior position to any one else. cause it just ain't sportsman like. I believe in an even playing field. where all are considered equal in the eyes of the Law.

Wow, you misunderstood entirely. I'm not saying that same sex couples deserve special privilege. I'm saying that that the arguments I use to justify same sex marriage are more than just the tired, "equality" argument. My arguments are...

1. There is a strong evidence base which supports that same sex parents are just as capable of raising children and different sex parents.
2. There is a strong evidence base that marriage makes same sex relationships considerably more stable.
3. There are as many as 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples who would benefit from same sex marriage.

Those are arguments I can make for same sex marriage, that you cannot make for straight guys marrying each other. So my arguments extend beyond just equality arguments. :mrgreen:

You have been listening to waaaaay too much Dobson.

 

[RightinNYC]

The question of whether or not civil marriage should exist is a completely separate issue from whether or not gay marriage should be legal.

Case in point. As long as civil marriage exists for heterosexual couples, do you support extending it to homosexual couples? It's fine to argue that there should be no civil marriage, but as long as it exists, should it be equal for everyone?

If you are arguing that civil marriage should not exist, but as long as it does, it should only exist for heterosexual couples, then you really aren't any different than anti gay marriage proponents. You are simply using the unlikely possibility that civil marriage will be done away with as an excuse to oppose same sex marriage.

I don't oppose same-sex marriage. I've contacted my state legislators to ask them to vote in favor of legalization, I've voted for candidates who supported it both in and out of the Republican party, and I've been pretty vocal about my support for gay marriage on this site. I think it's good policy and good governance. I'm simply not convinced that the Constitution requires that individual states grant gay couples the right to marry, and don't believe that such an approach will succeed.

 

[Skateguy]

Wow, you misunderstood entirely. I'm not saying that same sex couples deserve special privilege. I'm saying that that the arguments I use to justify same sex marriage are more than just the tired, "equality" argument. My arguments are...

1. There is a strong evidence base which supports that same sex parents are just as capable of raising children and different sex parents.
2. There is a strong evidence base that marriage makes same sex relationships considerably more stable.
3. There are as many as 8 to 10 million children of gay parents and same sex couples who would benefit from same sex marriage.

Those are arguments I can make for same sex marriage, that you cannot make for straight guys marrying each other. So my arguments extend beyond just equality arguments. :mrgreen:

You have been listening to waaaaay too much Dobson.

Fine then, I get your point---Except for one thing, you have no idea the argument I can make for Straight Men having equal rights under the Law with any one. ---Now just make that include all Males, and I'm behind you 100%. anything else is just more of the same discrimination against those who don't agree with your views. And we both know how much you dislike that.

 

[CriticalThought]

Fine then, I get your point---Except for one thing, you have no idea the argument I can make for Straight Men having equal rights under the Law with any one. ---Now just make that include all Males, and I'm behind you 100%. anything else is just more of the same discrimination against those who don't agree with your views. And we both know how much you dislike that.

Like I said, if you want to advocate on behalf of straight men marrying straight men, then have at it. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. If other countries are any indicator, allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry does not significantly increase the likelihood that straight guys will marry straight guys.

 

[CriticalThought]

I don't oppose same-sex marriage. I've contacted my state legislators to ask them to vote in favor of legalization, I've voted for candidates who supported it both in and out of the Republican party, and I've been pretty vocal about my support for gay marriage on this site. I think it's good policy and good governance. I'm simply not convinced that the Constitution requires that individual states grant gay couples the right to marry, and don't believe that such an approach will succeed.

Why don't you believe it will succeed?

If the 14th amendment worked for Loving v. Virgina, why not same sex couples?

 

[Jiyuu]

What gets me is that so many people think that "Conservatives" are against same sex marriage. Many conservatives have different social opinions vs fiscal. The gay movement is strong in our country and I believe the States are all going to follow suit in granting the right to marry. Californians seems to have had a tough time though.

 

[Skateguy]

Like I said, if you want to advocate on behalf of straight men marrying straight men, then have at it. It has nothing to do with same sex marriage. If other countries are any indicator, allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry does not significantly increase the likelihood that straight guys will marry straight guys.

Male is a sex--Homo is the choice--ya just can't make it up as you go, in spite of your distaste for Gay People.

 

[CriticalThought]

Homo is the choice

Can you prove it?

Something tells me if you could, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Skateguy]

Can you prove it?

Something tells me if you could, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If Homo, is not a choice, then what would you call it. Do you feel it is a separate gender?? And should we then have three, or even four sexes?? Seems Male and Female has worked for a long time to me. As far as a Male or female persons choice in their sexual orientation--that is not my concern. --I can't even prove the sun will come out tomorrow.

 

[CriticalThought]

If Homo, is not a choice, then what would you call it.

An orientation.

Do you feel it is a separate gender??

No.

And should we then have three, or even four sexes??

There are only two sexes. Male and Female. XY and XX.

Seems Male and Female has worked for a long time to me.

Yup.

As far as a Male or female persons choice in their sexual orientation--that is not my concern.

If an orientation were a choice, then it wouldn't be an orientation. Can you prove that it is a choice?

--I can't even prove the sun will come out tomorrow.

Good to know. Before you argue that homosexuality is a choice, you might want to consider that you can't prove that it is. I'm assuming that your heterosexuality is a choice though since you seem to think that homosexuality is a choice. Are you saying you could feel sexual attraction to a man?

 

[Skateguy]

An orientation.



No.



There are only two sexes. Male and Female. XY and XX.



Yup.



If an orientation were a choice, then it wouldn't be an orientation. Can you prove that it is a choice?



Good to know. Before you argue that homosexuality is a choice, you might want to consider that you can't prove that it is. I'm assuming that your heterosexuality is a choice though since you seem to think that homosexuality is a choice. Are you saying you could feel sexual attraction to a man?

So I take it that you have proof then. show me.

 

[CriticalThought]

So I take it that you have proof then. show me.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf

Evidence indicates that sexual orientation is determined in the womb. In other words, gays probably truly are born gay even if they don't directly have any genetics which lead them to be gay. Brain development during fetal development probably varies as a result of hormone exposure to the extent that a portion of the population is born gay. Any other questions?

It may not be absolutely conclusive proof, but it goes far beyond anything you could provide to support your argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why don't you believe it will succeed?

If the 14th amendment worked for Loving v. Virgina, why not same sex couples?

Because race is different from sexual orientation. The 14th Amendment was passed with the intention of combating invidious racial discrimination. The prohibition on interracial marriage served absolutely no societal purpose and could not be defended on the grounds that it was necessary to protect a state interest. It served only to perpetuate racism. In contrast, marriage being limited to one man and one woman is something that has existed for a long period of time without being designed to discriminate against any suspect class. While you and I might not agree with the policy, there is at least a colorable argument that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does serve a state interest.

Furthermore, I don't see this argument working simply because the courts have indicated that it won't. Most courts have read Loving and other cases like Lawrence v. Texas quite narrowly. Justice O'Connor laid out the distinction fairly clearly in her concurring opinion in Lawrence:

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted state interest in this case--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Skateguy]

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission to the Church of England.pdf

Evidence indicates that sexual orientation is determined in the womb. In other words, gays probably truly are born gay even if they don't directly have any genetics which lead them to be gay. Brain development during fetal development probably varies as a result of hormone exposure to the extent that a portion of the population is born gay. Any other questions?

It may not be absolutely conclusive proof, but it goes far beyond anything you could provide to support your argument that sexual orientation is a choice.

And I take it, that is what you call proof. cool by me. Just askin. As for how I come to my conclusions, I do so in the same way I do it with everything else. I use a culmination of information I have gathered in 63 years, and reach my conclusions based on that information. I don't seek the opinions of others. Nor seek their counsel. I formulate my own theories, and it has served me well for several decades. I care little what others may think, although I don't summarily disregard them. I just understand that people often view the same evidence differently. and I just happen to trust my track record, more than someone I have never met. Our Worlds may be full of different events. so people should just decide what is best for themselves, and call it good.

 

[RightinNYC]

And I take it, that is what you call proof. cool by me. Just askin. As for how I come to my conclusions, I do so in the same way I do it with everything else. I use a culmination of information I have gathered in 63 years, and reach my conclusions based on that information. I don't seek the opinions of others. Nor seek their counsel. I formulate my own theories, and it has served me well for several decades. I care little what others may think, although I don't summarily disregard them. I just understand that people often view the same evidence differently. and I just happen to trust my track record, more than someone I have never met. Our Worlds may be full of different events. so people should just decide what is best for themselves, and call it good.

Seriously?

Based on my 24 years of looking at the moon, it appears that it's made of cheese. However, despite the fact that I've never been there to disprove that, I can look at the research conducted by others and recognize that it's actually rock.

Do you actually think it's a good thing to reject all science or knowledge that you have not personally collected, eschewing reason and reality for whatever you perceive and wish to be true?

 

[CriticalThought]

Because race is different from sexual orientation. The 14th Amendment was passed with the intention of combating invidious racial discrimination. The prohibition on interracial marriage served absolutely no societal purpose and could not be defended on the grounds that it was necessary to protect a state interest. It served only to perpetuate racism. In contrast, marriage being limited to one man and one woman is something that has existed for a long period of time without being designed to discriminate against any suspect class. While you and I might not agree with the policy, there is at least a colorable argument that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does serve a state interest.

Furthermore, I don't see this argument working simply because the courts have indicated that it won't. Most courts have read Loving and other cases like Lawrence v. Texas quite narrowly. Justice O'Connor laid out the distinction fairly clearly in her concurring opinion in Lawrence:



FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Hm..interesting view.

I suppose we will get a front row seat on the federal case of Prop 8 and we can see how things play out.

 

[Skateguy]

Seriously?

Based on my 24 years of looking at the moon, it appears that it's made of cheese. However, despite the fact that I've never been there to disprove that, I can look at the research conducted by others and recognize that it's actually rock.

Do you actually think it's a good thing to reject all science or knowledge that you have not personally collected, eschewing reason and reality for whatever you perceive and wish to be true?

You miss my point. I reject nothing. I try to take in as much information as my old Mind can, daily. and have been doing so all my life.--I use that information to formulate my opinions. --I don't stop at every cross road, and consult with the map. I just go with it, and learn as I go. what do I care?? It's just my opinions after all. It's not like they make any difference one way or the other. ---but it does work for me, more times than not. I average about 85% correct. which has been my grading for as long as I can remember. and that is just fine by me. I don't expect to be right all the time. ---but then, nobody is. ---Oh, the Moon is made of green cheese. ---Never let them kid you.

 

[CriticalThought]

You miss my point. I reject nothing. I try to take in as much information as my old Mind can, daily. and have been doing so all my life.--I use that information to formulate my opinions. --I don't stop at every cross road, and consult with the map. I just go with it, and learn as I go. what do I care?? It's just my opinions after all. It's not like they make any difference one way or the other. ---but it does work for me, more times than not. I average about 85% correct. which has been my grading for as long as I can remember. and that is just fine by me. I don't expect to be right all the time. ---but then, nobody is. ---Oh, the Moon is made of green cheese. ---Never let them kid you.

If you vote, then you make a difference. Voters who choose not to utilize critical thinking are one of the most dangerous blocks in society, to themselves and to the rest of society. They often impose opinions or beliefs on others that are not reasonably justified.

 

[RightinNYC]

You miss my point. I reject nothing. I try to take in as much information as my old Mind can, daily. and have been doing so all my life.--I use that information to formulate my opinions. --I don't stop at every cross road, and consult with the map. I just go with it, and learn as I go. what do I care?? It's just my opinions after all. It's not like they make any difference one way or the other. ---but it does work for me, more times than not. I average about 85% correct. which has been my grading for as long as I can remember. and that is just fine by me. I don't expect to be right all the time. ---but then, nobody is. ---Oh, the Moon is made of green cheese. ---Never let them kid you.

So if you believe that X is true based on your life experience and I show you scientific studies proving that X is false, you will still believe that X is true?

 

[Skateguy]

So if you believe that X is true based on your life experience and I show you scientific studies proving that X is false, you will still believe that X is true?

OK, here is where we are different. It seems if you think that if you use someone else's information, as fact, and want to take credit for it being correct, (which you have no way of knowing, other than blind trust) then that information should supersede my information. I disagree with that premise.--Now if you tell me something you have personally experienced, I will look at that with great interest. But to use someone else's study, or fact gathering as fact is not scientific. You never assume the other guy did a better job of researching than you did your self. I trust my methods, I don't even know the other guy. He could be a nut job in a white smock for all I know. This is not school, where the teacher is always right.

 

[CriticalThought]

OK, here is where we are different. It seems if you think that if you use someone else's information, as fact, and want to take credit for it being correct, (which you have no way of knowing, other than blind trust) then that information should supersede my information. I disagree with that premise.--Now if you tell me something you have personally experienced, I will look at that with great interest. But to use someone else's study, or fact gathering as fact is not scientific. You never assume the other guy did a better job of researching than you did your self. I trust my methods, I don't even know the other guy. He could be a nut job in a white smock for all I know. This is not school, where the teacher is always right.

Wow. You really have no idea what the scientific method is, do you?

Do you know what selective perception and confirmation bias are?