This is unbeleveable.....Only in California....

[misterman]

Basicaly, I don't see a pay-off for me in supporting gay marriage.

Someday someone might want to take away your right to marry, and maybe gays will be there to help stop them.

 

[Jerry]

Someday someone might want to take away your right to marry, and maybe gays will be there to help stop them.

I think I'm finished with the whole marriage thing, personally.

I can't re-marry for another 12 years anyway.

 

[CriticalThought]

Actually that's exactly what I did when a Constitutional gay-marriage ban was put to the ballot here in SD a few years ago. I voted on other issues and simply left the portion regarding gay marriage blank.

That doesn't mean I can't shoot down failed arguments on DP, though.

What failed arguments?

You tried to argue that marriage is not a civil right in the United States by distorting the wording of the Loving v. Virginia ruling to mean that marriage is only a right if serves to continue the existence of the species through raising and socializing children.

You tried to argue that the only benefit to society that it should endorse with marriage is the raising and socialization of children, despite a wealth of sociological evidence which indicates that even without children, marriage holds a large number of economic, legal, social, and health benefits.

You tried to argue that marriage without children was a violation of your human rights because you didn't support it for other people.

You have not shot down anything. You have made completely ludicrous arguments based upon your personal feelings and biases that hold no real weight in this debate aside from attempting to confuse people. You want the marriage issue to be about "family" because in your mind, that is the only legitimate route that the pro GM people can take and you will make any irrational and invalid argument you can to push that agenda.

 

[CriticalThought]

I think I'm finished with the whole marriage thing, personally.

I can't re-marry for another 12 years anyway.

THANK ****ing GOD!

:2wave:

 

[Jerry]

THANK ****ing GOD!

:2wave:

I mean getting married myself, not debating it :2wave:

 

[misterman]

I think I'm finished with the whole marriage thing, personally.

I'm shocked that someone who can't think of a reason for doing anything other than "what's in it for me" isn't very successful with marriage.

 

[misterman]

I mean getting married myself, not debating it :2wave:

I think he knew that.

 

[Jerry]

I'm shocked that someone who can't think of a reason for doing anything other than "what's in it for me" isn't very successful with marriage.

Makes one distrust the gay movement since they're also only in it for themselves.

 

[misterman]

Makes one distrust the gay movement since they're also only in it for themselves.

Are they? How do you know that? Do they want to get rid of hetero marriage or something?

 

[Jerry]

Are they? How do you know that? Do they want to get rid of hetero marriage or something?

Uh, yeah, don't you see the posts where pro-gm folks say stupid **** like "well let's get rid of hetero marriage too", instead of, I don't know, coming up with a constructive solution which satisfies everyone.

 

[John Doe]

Uh, yeah, don't you see the posts where pro-gm folks say stupid **** like "well let's get rid of hetero marriage too", instead of, I don't know, coming up with a constructive solution which satisfies everyone.

Like allowing marriage for everyone?

 

[CriticalThought]

Uh, yeah, don't you see the posts where pro-gm folks say stupid **** like "well let's get rid of hetero marriage too", instead of, I don't know, coming up with a constructive solution which satisfies everyone.

There is no such thing. The very nature of humanity is that if everyone is in agreement on something then some people will choose to disagree just to be different. The only solution is to battle it out with reason and evidence until the side that can make the best argument wins. The Prop 8 trial is where that is going to begin. I'm not the judge, but given that the pro Prop 8 people could only call 2 witnesses and one of them pretty much went over to the anti Prop 8 side during cross testimony, indicates that there isn't a very strong argument to be made to support banning same sex marriage.

 

[Jerry]

Like allowing marriage for everyone?

No like addressing Conservative concerns such as the divorce rate while getting gay 'marriage.

 

[Jerry]

There is no such thing.

Yes there is, it's called "compromise", you might want to google it.

If this were up to the Conservatives of both sides the issue would have been resolved and gays would have had "marriage" a long time ago. Years ago. But Liberals from the right and left keep fighting and dragging this out.

Liberals everywhere need to stfu and go die somewhere so the sane people can live in piece.

 

[misterman]

Uh, yeah, don't you see the posts where pro-gm folks say stupid **** like "well let's get rid of hetero marriage too", instead of, I don't know, coming up with a constructive solution which satisfies everyone.

But it's not just supporters of gay marriage who say that, and they don't want to get rid of straight marriage but keep gay marriage. They want to get rid of state involvement in ALL marriage, which would certainly solve the problem. A constructive solution which ought to satisfy everyone is allowing both kinds of marriage and letting people live their lives the way they want, but some people just don't seem to understand that.

 

[misterman]

Yes there is, it's called "compromise", you might want to google it.

If this were up to the Conservatives of both sides the issue would have been resolved and gays would have had "marriage" a long time ago. Years ago. But Liberals from the right and left keep fighting and dragging this out.

Liberals everywhere need to stfu and go die somewhere so the sane people can live in piece.

So you've talked yourself into believing that conservatives want gay marriage but liberals are standing in their way.

Wow.

 

[Jerry]

But it's not just supporters of gay marriage who say that, and they don't want to get rid of straight marriage but keep gay marriage. They want to get rid of state involvement in ALL marriage, which would certainly solve the problem. A constructive solution which ought to satisfy everyone is allowing both kinds of marriage and letting people live their lives the way they want, but some people just don't seem to understand that.

Abolishing all marriage is just stupid. Seriously, all cynicism aside, that position is just flat out ignorant. It's wishful thinking of a far off utopia where no regulation is ever needed for anything because everyone works together and solves problems all on their own and everything fine with the show ending with everyone laughing.

To imagine having no regulation on inheritance, next-of-kin, legal dependents, spousal privilege, etc. It's pure nonsense.

Abolishing all marriage is like killing all women because a few of them are murderers.

A real solution would be for gays to de-polarize the issue; polarization is, after all, exactly why they can't marry yet. Gays can de-polarize the issue by penning a bill which offers solutions to problems all marriages per-se face.

That bill should address the main causes of divorce, ie 1. fights over money and 2. couples in high-risk-of-divorce demographics (such as marrying young, mixed race, mixed religion).

IMO the best way to address those problems is to have a standardized pre-marital counseling program which the couple has to complete before a license can be issued; just like how in most states you have to complete a class before your CCW license is issued. This program would cover basic finance counseling, personal compatibility (views on religion, raising children, house rules, and a short trust class), and discuss any familial problems unique to the couple.

Instead of trying to spear gay marriage down everyone's throat as it's main theme, the bill would simply include gay partners as couples eligible to complete the same program as everyone else and receive the same "marriage" license.

By placing broad marital problems in the foreground, you create a common ground which everyone can relate to, and thus more public support. By placing gay marriage in the background, you frame gay marriage as simply another option someone might choose no different than interracial marriage. A bill addressing the broader problems of marriage per-se disarms 99% of gay marriage opposition because, after all, if it's a healthy marriage, it doesn't matter what religions, sexes or races the couples are.


***
In fact, if such regulation were a part of Obama'Care, I would have to rethink my opposition to that as well.

 

[Deuce]

Having government decide who gets to get married? Yeah run that by your conservative buddies. Some panel deciding "Well, Billy, you and Jane have a 43% higher chance of divorce because of your financial status. I'm afraid I can't sign off on this marriage."

I mean, you really call that a compromise?

How come conservatives get so utterly infuriated at the thought of government paying for healthcare of others with MY TAX DOLLARS RAARR but now you're suggesting government involvement in who gets married?

"GET GUBMINT OUT OF MY LIFE!" (except for marriage they should totally push Christian beliefs down everyone's throat)

 

[Jerry]

Having government decide who gets to get married? Yeah run that by your conservative buddies. Some panel deciding "Well, Billy, you and Jane have a 43% higher chance of divorce because of your financial status. I'm afraid I can't sign off on this marriage."

I mean, you really call that a compromise?

Everyone gets nothing less than all of exactly what they want.

The left get's gay "marriage", perfectly identical to every other marriage, and the right get's 'family values' enforced though law.
(note that religious ideals and programs are acceptable into law and public funding when those religious ideals serve secular purposes. This is one such example.)

It's a win/win.

How come conservatives get so utterly infuriated at the thought of government paying for healthcare of others with MY TAX DOLLARS RAARR but now you're suggesting government involvement in who gets married?

The couple pays for everything, we could even have a list of private agencies who could perform the counseling whom the Justice of the Piece would accept.

If you want your counseling to have a progressive slant, go to a secular company. If you want your counseling to have a religious slant, go to a certified religious group. It's all good. These groups can decide for themselves if they want to be a 501c3 or charge you a premium, and you can shop them and decide for yourself who you want to go to or how much you want to pay.

You'll find this is also the Conservative position on health-care, mandatory sex-ed in the public school, and similar. I'm being quite consistent with Conservative ideal here.

 

[misterman]

Abolishing all marriage is just stupid.

Okay. I didn't suggest it.

Instead of trying to spear gay marriage down everyone's throat as it's main theme, the bill would simply include gay partners as couples eligible to complete the same program as everyone else and receive the same "marriage" license.

Gay marriage doesn't shove anything down anyone's throats, at least not figuratively.

By placing broad marital problems in the foreground, you create a common ground which everyone can relate to, and thus more public support.

It's already common ground.

By placing gay marriage in the background, you frame gay marriage as simply another option someone might choose no different than interracial marriage. A bill addressing the broader problems of marriage per-se disarms 99% of gay marriage opposition because, after all, if it's a healthy marriage, it doesn't matter what religions, sexes or races the couples are.

Okay, I've said what I needed to say. I'm glad you're thinking about solutions that could defuse the opposition and make it work. And your ideas are actually good for marriage too.

Don't harbor any notions that this would get rid of all opposition though.

 

[misterman]

The left get's gay "marriage", perfectly identical to every other marriage, and the right get's 'family values' enforced though law.
(note that religious ideals and programs are acceptable into law and public funding when those religious ideals serve secular purposes. This is one such example.)

It's a win/win.

But the right wants no gay marriage, because it thinks gay marriage degrades family values. The right will never accept this compromise, or any compromise for that matter. You give the way too much credit for rational thought.

 

[Jerry]

But the right wants no gay marriage, because it thinks gay marriage degrades family values. The right will never accept this compromise, or any compromise for that matter. You give the way too much credit for rational thought.

The reason why the right knee-jerks against gay marriage is due to how it's presented, not due to actual substance.

Capt'n C's Jedi Form 4: Equal resistance to force applied. The more gays try to force it, the more the right resists; the more the right tries to ban it, the more gays stand up for it. The solution is to not force it in either direction, neither to ban or to legalize.

Simply allow the 2 to coexist, neither fighting against the other, but instead both working together for a mutual goal.

Only the radical right (liberals) would oppose a solution like I've presented, and who gives a **** about them anyway?

 

[Deuce]

The reason why the right knee-jerks against gay marriage is due to how it's presented, not due to actual substance.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yes, the people standing on the streets saying that homosexuality is an abomination, that gays allowed to marry will cause straight people to divorce and turn gay, that THE CHILDREN WILL BE HARMED! Yes, these people just oppose the method of presention.

Between this thread and the other where you're blaming rape on the victim, welcome to the ignore list, troll.

 

[Jerry]

AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yes, the people standing on the streets saying that homosexuality is an abomination, that gays allowed to marry will cause straight people to divorce and turn gay, that THE CHILDREN WILL BE HARMED! Yes, these people just oppose the method of presention.

Those are liberals who do that, and as I said, who gives a **** about what they have to say? They're the fringe.

Between this thread and the other where you're blaming rape on the victim, welcome to the ignore list, troll.

Wow you really don't see what I'm doing on that thread? Really?

 

[misterman]

The reason why the right knee-jerks against gay marriage is due to how it's presented, not due to actual substance.

I think you vastly underestimate both the size and stupidity of the right wing.