CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban.

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Let's return to my overall assertion.

I asked why the government does not allow polygamy.

Eskimospy answered that it's because polygamy goes hand in hand with child abuse, sexual molestation and other ills. In other words, the government will not sanction it because it deems it to be damaging to society.

I hold that, using that premise, the government also has cause to outlaw homosexual activity, because gays have a much higher rate of STD transmission, notably AIDS, which has recently reached pandemic status. By this reasoning, should the government outlaw homosexual activity?

Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Craig, it seems you are having a hard time following this thread. You see, it started out with Tab claiming homosexuality was illegal some time ago and asking me if I would vote to keep homosexuality illegal. My answer, of course, was no. I asked him to post proof of homosexuality being illegal and he did not. Instead, you came along and posted a law on sodomy being illegal.

What you are failing to understand is that sodomy does not equal homosexuality. And though homosexuals take part in sodomy, so can heterosexuals. You see, SODOMY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

*The OP is about gay marriage. How about answering that question I asked earlier?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Corbett
Craig, it seems you are having a hard time following this thread. You see, it started out with Tab claiming homosexuality was illegal some time ago and asking me if I would vote to keep homosexuality illegal. My answer, of course, was no. I asked him to post proof of homosexuality being illegal and he did not. Instead, you came along and posted a law on sodomy being illegal.

What you are failing to understand is that sodomy does not equal homosexuality. And though homosexuals take part in sodomy, so can heterosexuals. You see, SODOMY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

*The OP is about gay marriage. How about answering that question I asked earlier?

Yes, homosexuality has been illegal in many countries and those whom are have been persecuted in the past. I can't even believe you're debating this.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Robor
*The OP is about gay marriage. How about answering that question I asked earlier?

Yes, homosexuality has been illegal in many countries and those whom are have been persecuted in the past. I can't even believe you're debating this.

So we should bar gays from marriage because other countries do it?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Corbett
Craig, it seems you are having a hard time following this thread. You see, it started out with Tab claiming homosexuality was illegal some time ago and asking me if I would vote to keep homosexuality illegal. My answer, of course, was no. I asked him to post proof of homosexuality being illegal and he did not. Instead, you came along and posted a law on sodomy being illegal.

What you are failing to understand is that sodomy does not equal homosexuality. And though homosexuals take part in sodomy, so can heterosexuals. You see, SODOMY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

*The OP is about gay marriage. How about answering that question I asked earlier?

Yes, homosexuality has been illegal in many countries and those whom are have been persecuted in the past. I can't even believe you're debating this.

Tab, homosexuality cannot be illegal. It's a sexual orientation, an abstraction. No one has ever been prosecuted under a charge of being gay; the prosecution is for engaging in homosexual acts.

I don't like using this example but it will help illustrate. Being a pedophile is perfectly legal. You can be attracted to as many prepubescent kids as you want. It is not against the law. What is against the law is engaging in acts with those children or trading in sexual materials featuring children.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

No, I'm simply saying that the argument (making gay marriage legal will increase cases of monagomy) is inaccurate, because current gay marriages end in divorce by a high rate. Marriages among straight peopel don't tend to make them more monogomous. Why should it be any different for gay people?

Why shouldn't the government outlaw homosexual activity if the government has the right to outlaw things that are damaging to society?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

No, I'm simply saying that the argument (making gay marriage legal will increase cases of monagomy) is inaccurate, because current gay marriages currently end in divorce by a high rate.

That evidence does not prove what you're saying. In no way does a higher divorce rate by gay couples mean that gay marriage will not increase monogamy.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

No, I'm simply saying that the argument (making gay marriage legal will increase cases of monagomy) is inaccurate, because current gay marriages currently end in divorce by a high rate.

That evidence does not prove what you're saying. In no way does a higher divorce rate by gay couples mean that gay marriage will not increase monogamy.

Further, in states where there is large opposition to gay marriage (red states) the divorce rate among hetero couples is higher across the board than those states more tolerant of gay marriage (blue states). Seems the red staters are so busy worrying about teh gaez they forgot to beat their wives into submission.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

No, I'm simply saying that the argument (making gay marriage legal will increase cases of monagomy) is inaccurate, because current gay marriages currently end in divorce by a high rate.

That evidence does not prove what you're saying. In no way does a higher divorce rate by gay couples mean that gay marriage will not increase monogamy.

It sure seems to indicate it. If gays are getting divorced at higher rates than non-gays, then I think it follows that they are not seeking monogamy.

At any rate, I don't see how this monogamy argument is important anyway. If you have AIDS, what difference does it make if you're only giving it to one person? What we're saying here is that it's okay if you're only putting one person at risk, and not many.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

No, I'm simply saying that the argument (making gay marriage legal will increase cases of monagomy) is inaccurate, because current gay marriages currently end in divorce by a high rate.

That evidence does not prove what you're saying. In no way does a higher divorce rate by gay couples mean that gay marriage will not increase monogamy.

Further, in states where there is large opposition to gay marriage (red states) the divorce rate among hetero couples is higher across the board than those states more tolerant of gay marriage (blue states). Seems the red staters are so busy worrying about teh gaez they forgot to beat their wives into submission.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281259/posts
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21

It sure seems to indicate it. If gays are getting divorced at higher rates than non-gays, then I think it follows that they are not seeking monogamy.

At any rate, I don't see how this monogamy argument is important anyway. If you have AIDS, what difference does it make if you're only giving it to one person? What we're saying here is that it's okay if you're only putting one person at risk, and not many.

... that does not mean that at all.

Secondly, you are missing the point about monogamy. Obviously people are going to have sex in their lives. This is inescapable. Marriage makes it more likely for someone to have fewer partners in their life. If someone has an STD, fewer partners will lead to fewer secondary infections. From an objective, secular, public health standpoint having 5 people with AIDS is better then having 10 people with AIDS. Therefore while it is not good for anyone to have AIDS, when given the choice of what to promote, the answer is clear.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

It sure seems to indicate it. If gays are getting divorced at higher rates than non-gays, then I think it follows that they are not seeking monogamy.

At any rate, I don't see how this monogamy argument is important anyway. If you have AIDS, what difference does it make if you're only giving it to one person? What we're saying here is that it's okay if you're only putting one person at risk, and not many.

... that does not mean that at all.

Secondly, you are missing the point about monogamy. Obviously people are going to have sex in their lives. This is inescapable. Marriage makes it more likely for someone to have fewer partners in their life. If someone has an STD, fewer partners will lead to fewer secondary infections. From an objective, secular, public health standpoint having 5 people with AIDS is better then having 10 people with AIDS. Therefore while it is not good for anyone to have AIDS, when given the choice of what to promote, the answer is clear.

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?

I'm not following you.

Agh. What's the point. Brain is tired.

You do realize that straight people get AIDS and other STD's as well, right? Anyway, this whole thread has derailed. This thread is about gay marriage. Why shouldn't gay people have the same marriage rights as straights? The arguments of polygamy or incest or animals or objects are all straw men. I'm not gay and I don't even have any close gay friends (not that I know of anyway) but I don't see why people that are gay shouldn't have the same marriage rights I have.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?

I'm not following you.

Agh. What's the point. Brain is tired.

You do realize that straight people get AIDS and other STD's as well, right? Anyway, this whole thread has derailed. This thread is about gay marriage. Why shouldn't gay people have the same marriage rights as straights? The arguments of polygamy or incest or animals or objects are all straw men. I'm not gay and I don't even have any close gay friends (not that I know of anyway) but I don't see why people that are gay shouldn't have the same marriage rights I have.

Well, then we disagree.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Robor
Maybe if homosexuals were allowed to marry more would be monogamous and have fewer partners? I realize this was already explained above but since the question was asked again... ;)

Maybe, but the homosexual marriages that have happened have had a high rate of divorce. Higher, in general, than the heterosexual counterparts.

Uh, so? US citizens have a higher rate of divorce than many other countries. Should they (we) then be denied marriage?

No, I'm simply saying that the argument (making gay marriage legal will increase cases of monagomy) is inaccurate, because current gay marriages currently end in divorce by a high rate.

That evidence does not prove what you're saying. In no way does a higher divorce rate by gay couples mean that gay marriage will not increase monogamy.

Further, in states where there is large opposition to gay marriage (red states) the divorce rate among hetero couples is higher across the board than those states more tolerant of gay marriage (blue states). Seems the red staters are so busy worrying about teh gaez they forgot to beat their wives into submission.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1281259/posts

http://www.sundaypaper.com/Mor...620/Blue-over-you.aspx
http://www.legalzoom.com/legal...les//article13573.html
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?

I'm not following you.

Agh. What's the point. Brain is tired.

Atreus, your post reflects an outstanding example of bigotry in your logic.

You said that if gays have a hgiher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy.

Now, the error in your statement is easy to see. Conisder "if blacks show a higher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy". Oh, now it's suddenly clear it's silly.

Try other groups. Divide couple into any two groups that have different societal factors, and you are likely to see one group with a higher rate than the other. Same logic.

What's interesting is why you made the error. It's because you started out with a predisposition to say that gays are not 'legitimate' couples, and you grabbed on to the nearest bright shiny object and called it proof of your point. Oh, a higher divorce rate! Suddenly, gays don't even have the SAME DAMN MOTIVE for marrying, and so giving them marital rights would be just silly, pretending erroneously that they're the same kind of human beings as non-gays.

Point made?

Buth then you move into the even more baseless and offensive - what the hell does AIDS have to do with the right to marry? AIDS is nothing more than a disease that's more easily transmitted by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. That's it - no larger point to the issue of gays having the right to marry. Even the fact that gay marriage REDUCES gay promiscuity and therefore the spread of AIDS is not the reason for gay marriage, it's just a coincidental side benefit. The reason is because it's unjustified bigotry.

But then again, unjustified bigotry is the reason for your opinion, so you might not find that a problem.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Even if statistics indicate that polygamous marriages tend to be oppressive, I could say, if I was a future polygamist, the government has no right to dictate my rights by statistics. I'm sure traditional marriages have a tendency to be oppressive and violent too, to some extent.

I think we've reached the end of the road here. :roll:

I don't see how. Eskimo said that the government outlaws polygamy because it tends to breed sexual abuse. To which I respond, "So what? I'm not a sex offender. I should have the right to marry as I choose, to as many people as I choose. On what grounds do you justly deny me this?"

The government can deny you the right to multiple wives because it denies it to all. There is no unequal discrimination going on; that's why talking about polygamy is strawman when talking about gay marriage.

How's that make sense? You could just as easily say the gov't can deny a man the right to marry another man because it denies it to all; hence, it's fair.

No you can't. You're already allowing heterosexuals to join under the law as one but discriminating against homosexual individuals to do the same. It's more like, everyone should be able to choose their own partner in life, but you're denying that right to those that want to choose a partner of the same sex.

And you're denying that right to those that want to choose more than one partner. On what basis?

But you're denying it to everyone. In the case of homosexual marriage, you're denying the right to choose 1 partner to a group of people. With polygamy, you're denying that right to everyone equally.

You're actually making the same logical error that many gay marriage opponents do.

They argue that banning gay marriage isn't discrimination, because everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, gays and straights alike.

Of course to many people, the flaw in that reasoning is clear, and a useful analogy is to bans on inter-racial marriage - no discrimination, all can marry someone of the same race.

It's the same thing here. "No discrimination - all can marry one person". Well, that's discriminatory; it limits those who want to marry more than one person in the definition.

The issue that actually has to be address is, is the discrimination JUSTIFIED?

We don't want someone to say they choose a white man over a black man to be an accountant because of race, but when casting the role in a movie of a while historical figure? Sure. You can say "sorry, Wesley Snipes, we're choosing Martin Sheen to play Kennedy and not you, and your race prevents you from getting the part." It's justified. We even give some squiggle room. Had a black actor been turned down for the part of James West in the Wild, Wild West movie, it'd have been ok; but they picked a black actor.

We don't allow the sort of crazy marriages like an adult marrying a ten year old, and it's because the discrimination can be justified.

The issue on polygamy that neds to be answered is, "is the discrimination justified?" It may be a case, as your post shows, where we're all still just bigoted on the issue and not ready.

There's a real lesson there, possibly, in how bigotry works, as we look back and ask 'how could racists be such assholes?' And I'm one of those who is still sorting through polygamy.

 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?

I'm not following you.

Agh. What's the point. Brain is tired.

Atreus, your post reflects an outstanding example of bigotry in your logic.

You said that if gays have a hgiher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy.

Now, the error in your statement is easy to see. Conisder "if blacks show a higher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy". Oh, now it's suddenly clear it's silly.

Try other groups. Divide couple into any two groups that have different societal factors, and you are likely to see one group with a higher rate than the other. Same logic.

What's interesting is why you made the error. It's because you started out with a predisposition to say that gays are not 'legitimate' couples, and you grabbed on to the nearest bright shiny object and called it proof of your point. Oh, a higher divorce rate! Suddenly, gays don't even have the SAME DAMN MOTIVE for marrying, and so giving them marital rights would be just silly, pretending erroneously that they're the same kind of human beings as non-gays.

Point made?

Buth then you move into the even more baseless and offensive - what the hell does AIDS have to do with the right to marry? AIDS is nothing more than a disease that's more easily transmitted by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. That's it - no larger point to the issue of gays having the right to marry. Even the fact that gay marriage REDUCES gay promiscuity and therefore the spread of AIDS is not the reason for gay marriage, it's just a coincidental side benefit. The reason is because it's unjustified bigotry.

But then again, unjustified bigotry is the reason for your opinion, so you might not find that a problem.

The entirety of the AIDS discussion came to the surface with a previous argument earlier in this thread between Eskimo and I.

I asked why polygamy was illegal. He responded that the government outlaws it because it's damaging to society, in that polygamous relationships are synonymous with sexual molestation, rape, and extreme male domination. I concede that.

But I do ask that we apply that premise uniformly. If the government has the right to outlaw something because it's damaging to society, one would think that homosexual activity, with an alarming tendency to spread HIV or other terminal STDs, would also fall under the governments capacity to outlaw.

The answer, of course, is that the government isn't supposed to discriminate based on statistics. Just because homosexual activity is conducive to the spread of AIDS doesn't mean you will catch AIDS if you engage in it.

So then, if the government is outlawing polygamy by an argument based on a flawed premise, why do we support them in outlawing marriage of more than two, if we don't support them in outlawing marriage between two of the same sex? Why do we judge polygamous marriages by different standards?

By the way, before you start throwing the word bigotry around, consider the fact that if you're intolerant of bigotry, you're bigoted.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
Craig, it seems you are having a hard time following this thread. You see, it started out with Tab claiming homosexuality was illegal some time ago and asking me if I would vote to keep homosexuality illegal. My answer, of course, was no. I asked him to post proof of homosexuality being illegal and he did not. Instead, you came along and posted a law on sodomy being illegal.

What you are failing to understand is that sodomy does not equal homosexuality. And though homosexuals take part in sodomy, so can heterosexuals. You see, SODOMY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

You're the one 'having a hard time' Corbett, as you continue to repeat the same line, is it seven, eight, ten times now, dishonestly pretending it's innocent, to dodge your bigotry.

I've addressed Tab's earlier post already, and clarified the issue. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over, and over, and over, even after being corrected each time.

You are the one who chose to pretend that the topic was homosexuality being illegal (hey, a straw man you can win against), instead of homosexual sex being illegal, with word games.

That was a mistake with one post, but repeating it post after post after post after you have been corrected is the behavior of someone who posting in good faith.

I'll show how you are feigning innocence in the following example, where you admit the point about 'how you would vote' meaning to ask your opinion on an issue, after you had tried the same kind of word games by treating the question as if it were about an actual ballot - and then you later go right back to pretending you think it's an actual ballot.

Here's the first exchange where I corrected you and you say you understood:

Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Craig234
However, when discussing opinion on the issue, it makes sense to ask you how you would vote on it on a ballot, to see what your opinion is, for or against the issue. It *could* be a ballot.

And I answered how I would vote on the hypothetical ballot, and when I called it hypothetical, I was told it was not hypothetical, but it was real.

See how you responded? You accept my point that asking you how you would vote is the same as asking you for your opinion on the issue. You knew it was 'hypothetical.

You claim it was *Tab* who was making the ballot in that exchange something else, with word games.

But then, let's see you later respond to Tab, clearly not referring to a literal ballot, in fact saying there is no literal ballot, with YOU pretending to think it must be a literal ballot:

Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Tab
I never said there was a ballot that made homosexuality illegal.

So then how could I vote on it?

To summarize, Tab asks you how you would vote, you try to de-rail things with demanding proof that there has been a vote historically doing this, I point out that he was asking your opinion by asking you how you would vote, you say you get it but it was Tab claiming there was a literal ballot, Tab responds that he has never said there was a literal ballot making homosexuality illegal, and you then bring the dishonest word games full circle by asking 'then how could you vote on it', pretending not to understand it's asking your opinion.

We could go in circles all day, with your question 'then how can you vote on it' being answered with 'asking how you would vote is a way of asking your opinion, there COULD be such a ballot', your claiming that you understand that but Tab made it literal, Tab saying he's not making it literal, and you then saying 'then how can you vote on it', answered by 'asking how you would vote is a way of asking your opinion, there COULD be such a ballot', ad infinitum.

You're simply not discussing the issue honestly, trolling at this point, and avoiding the issue of your bigotry in denying equal rights to gays.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Atreus21
By the way, before you start throwing the word bigotry around, consider the fact that if you're intolerant of bigotry, you're bigoted.

Heh... That's a lame argument but if you want to console yourself with it go ahead.

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Well, then we disagree.

Obviously. Why? Why should gay people not have the same marriage rights as you?

 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?

I'm not following you.

Agh. What's the point. Brain is tired.

Atreus, your post reflects an outstanding example of bigotry in your logic.

You said that if gays have a hgiher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy.

Now, the error in your statement is easy to see. Conisder "if blacks show a higher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy". Oh, now it's suddenly clear it's silly.

Try other groups. Divide couple into any two groups that have different societal factors, and you are likely to see one group with a higher rate than the other. Same logic.

What's interesting is why you made the error. It's because you started out with a predisposition to say that gays are not 'legitimate' couples, and you grabbed on to the nearest bright shiny object and called it proof of your point. Oh, a higher divorce rate! Suddenly, gays don't even have the SAME DAMN MOTIVE for marrying, and so giving them marital rights would be just silly, pretending erroneously that they're the same kind of human beings as non-gays.

Point made?

Buth then you move into the even more baseless and offensive - what the hell does AIDS have to do with the right to marry? AIDS is nothing more than a disease that's more easily transmitted by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. That's it - no larger point to the issue of gays having the right to marry. Even the fact that gay marriage REDUCES gay promiscuity and therefore the spread of AIDS is not the reason for gay marriage, it's just a coincidental side benefit. The reason is because it's unjustified bigotry.

But then again, unjustified bigotry is the reason for your opinion, so you might not find that a problem.

The entirety of the AIDS discussion came to the surface with a previous argument earlier in this thread between Eskimo and I.

I asked why polygamy was illegal. He responded that the government outlaws it because it's damaging to society, in that polygamous relationships are synonymous with sexual molestation, rape, and extreme male domination. I concede that.

But I do ask that we apply that premise uniformly. If the government has the right to outlaw something because it's damaging to society, one would think that homosexual activity, with an alarming tendency to spread HIV or other terminal STDs, would also fall under the governments capacity to outlaw.

The answer, of course, is that the government isn't supposed to discriminate based on statistics. Just because homosexual activity is conducive to the spread of AIDS doesn't mean you will catch AIDS if you engage in it.

So then, if the government is outlawing polygamy by an argument based on a flawed premise, why do we support them in outlawing marriage of more than two, if we don't support them in outlawing marriage between two of the same sex? Why do we judge polygamous marriages by different standards?

By the way, before you start throwing the word bigotry around, consider the fact that if you're intolerant of bigotry, you're bigoted.

Actually, after I read further, I recognized the context of your remarks was a response to his polygamy argument on abuse, and that changes things. Your point is accepted.

I could say I think Eskimospy is on weak ground with this polygamy/abuse argument, but he himself already acknowledges that pretty much, he was looking for some analogy.

I think the discussion would be well-served to choose another analogy.

Regarding your last point, I see benefit to distinguishing between discrimination that's justified, and discrimination based on bigotry.

My views on gay issues as a child were based on bigotry. I didn't know it at the time, but they were. My views on some issues still are, unfortunately, possibly including polygamy.

That's the function as I see it of discusing discrimination, to try to help get past what's justified and what's not. Gay marriage is a great case where there are several justifications offered up by opponents that just don't stand up to scrutiny, revealing that their real motivation is a pre-disposition against it for bigotry, and their 'reasons' are sought after the fact to defend the bigotry.

To pick one of the clearer examples, many opponents cite 'gays can't have children, and marriage is all about children, so that excludes gays from marriage'. It's convenient that they say this before thinking much, because that gives you the chance to raise the examples of elder and infertile couples marrying, which they don't object to, and which clearly show that marriage isn't just about kids - the topic of adoption and artifical insemination not even yet raised.

It utterly destroys their 'argument' about children and leaves them pretty defenseless on the issue. That's the point at which they should recognize they must have some other predisposition why they are so against gay marriage, to latch on to such an invalid argument, but sadly most seem to just race to the next argument looking to justify their position, rather than to notice why they are so determined to have that position.

You say that opposing bigots is a form of bigotry. Using my definitions, I'd say that I acknowledge it's a form of discrimination, but I think it's justified.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
To summarize, Tab asks you how you would vote, you try to de-rail things with demanding proof that there has been a vote historically doing this, I point out that he was asking your opinion by asking you how you would vote, you say you get it but it was Tab claiming there was a literal ballot, Tab responds that he has never said there was a literal ballot making homosexuality illegal, and you then bring the dishonest word games full circle by asking 'then how could you vote on it', pretending not to understand it's asking your opinion.

Wrong again. Tab first tried to through a hypothetical at me and ask how I would vote. I explained its just a hypothetical. He then tried to make it not a hypothetical by stating it had happened in the past and that he wanted to know how I would have voted had I been around to vote on it.

I asked for proof of it and then you posted a ban on sodomy. Nice try though.