• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Probably because the idea of marriage being a purely religious institution is a liberal invention.
Depends on the frame of reference. In the US (which is the frame of reference for this discussion), the religious institution came before the legal institution. The legal institution gave legal power to the religious institution and codified religion into law.

This should never have happened. It did long ago, and there is no use in crying about what is already done. At this point, we can choose to continue to add wrong to wrong or we can choose to right the wrong.

Lets right the wrong and remove government from religion instead of getting government more deeply involved in it.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I am in favor of allowing SSM. But sometimes i wish they would maybe attack it from another angle. Forget the word 'marriage' and instead focus on 'civil unions' and paint marriages as bad with a 50% divorce rate. Just to say they dont want to be associated with such a failed system as marraige :)

But im fine with either term. But they may get more support the other way :)
Exactly. Many people are fighting to either redefine the term or to prevent the redefining of the term. If the right was instead over getting the government out of religion, you would have the gay rights groups and the religious groups both on the same side of the issue. The only upset ones would be the irrational fringe extremists on both sides...but they will never be happy so we should ignore the kooks.

If this was done, a new civil union would already have been created and rights handed out to more people. Instead, rights are being delayed because kooks (on both sides) are controlling the fight.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
I think it's fantastic that gay marriage will soon no longer be a wedge issue, even in battleground states. That may takes another few years, but it's no longer seemingly decades out, as it may have seemed in 2000 or 2004.
You really believe that? Last time I checked, the majority of states had amended their constitution to explicitly prohibit same sex marriage..

Thats why I'm leery of these supposed polls that show opposition to gay marriage is waning..

Usually when a state puts it to the ballot, the gay marriage initiative comes out on the bottom..

One thing is for sure; history will not look kindly on those that vehemently opposed SSM. It'll be looked at with almost the same disdain as those who denied interracial marriages to blacks.
I hate it when people try to compare SSM to interracial marriage. They are not even remotely comparable :rolleyes:

A white man is a man, and a black woman is a woman. There is nothing strange or weird about them wanting to hook up.. As a matter of fact, interracial unions are beneficial to the human race in that they provide greater genetic diversity in the population.. Also, "interracial" (and I use that term ever so lightly) marriages, sex and unions have been taking place all over the World for thousands of years.

Entire nations and continents are filled with "hybrid" or mixed peoples..

Gay marriage on the other hand, is extremely rare in human history. The fact is, the majority of Civilizations/Societies have never allowed gay marriage, because it was considered either useless (or harmful) to Society or unnatural..

Like I said, not even remotely comparable..
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Steers clear of the gay marriage issue?

How is that different than to democrat's position?
Did you forget about Obama's coming out?

You really believe that? Last time I checked, the majority of states had amended their constitution to explicitly prohibit same sex marriage..

Thats why I'm leery of these supposed polls that show opposition to gay marriage is waning..

Usually when a state puts it to the ballot, the gay marriage initiative comes out on the bottom..



I hate it when people try to compare SSM to interracial marriage. They are not even remotely comparable :rolleyes:

A white man is a man, and a black woman is a woman. There is nothing strange or weird about them wanting to hook up.. As a matter of fact, interracial unions are beneficial to the human race in that they provide greater genetic diversity in the population.. Also, "interracial" (and I use that term ever so lightly) marriages, sex and unions have been taking place all over the World for thousands of years.

Entire nations and continents are filled with "hybrid" or mixed peoples..

Gay marriage on the other hand, is extremely rare in human history. The fact is, the majority of Civilizations/Societies have never allowed gay marriage, because it was considered either useless (or harmful) to Society or unnatural..

Like I said, not even remotely comparable..
Well put.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
I hate it when people try to compare SSM to interracial marriage. They are not even remotely comparable :rolleyes:

A white man is a man, and a black woman is a woman. There is nothing strange or weird about them wanting to hook up.. As a matter of fact, interracial unions are beneficial to the human race in that they provide greater genetic diversity in the population.. Also, "interracial" (and I use that term ever so lightly) marriages, sex and unions have been taking place all over the World for thousands of years.

Entire nations and continents are filled with "hybrid" or mixed peoples..

Gay marriage on the other hand, is extremely rare in human history. The fact is, the majority of Civilizations/Societies have never allowed gay marriage, because it was considered either useless (or harmful) to Society or unnatural..

Like I said, not even remotely comparable..
They only don't seem comparable to you because you've likely lived with interracial marriages your whole life. I guarantee you that people in the past found mixing races to be extremely 'weird' in the US. You realize that 60% of US states have had laws on the books banning interracial marriage at one point or another, right?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,183
60
91
Who is getting married now-a-days?

What is the financial argument for being married?

How will you get that earned income credit?
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
They only don't seem comparable to you because you've likely lived with interracial marriages your whole life. I guarantee you that people in the past found mixing races to be extremely 'weird' in the US. You realize that 60% of US states have had laws on the books banning interracial marriage at one point or another, right?
You realize that gay marriage was so absurd they did not even bother to make it illegal right? Not until recently I mean.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
They only don't seem comparable to you because you've likely lived with interracial marriages your whole life. I guarantee you that people in the past found mixing races to be extremely 'weird' in the US. You realize that 60% of US states have had laws on the books banning interracial marriage at one point or another, right?
I don't dispute the fact that most of the states in the U.S banned interracial marriage at some point.

My point though, is that gay marriage and interracial marriage are not directly comparable outside of that particular legal context.

And although interracial marriage between whites and blacks were banned, there was still plenty of "mixing" going on. In fact, over 70% of modern day African Americans have white ancestry.

History has shown that whenever different ethnic/racial groups mix together, there is ALWAYS sexual contact between them regardless of the circumstances..

Whether it's Africans in the New World or Jews in Europe.....it doesn't matter.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
People actually still want this. They want the government to say no brother-sister marriages and no polygamist marriages. They want to continue denying rights to these groups in the name of equality.
True, but while I have no problems with either brother-sister marriages or polygamist marriages, both present potential societal problems that gay marriage does not. It's a difference in order of magnitude, much as how I'm allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle with a background check or a fully automatic rifle with a much more strenuous background check, but I'm not allowed to own a howitzer. Society decides that the potential harm of mutated children, abandoned children, forced marriages, and me dropping forty-eight kilos of steel-wrapped PBX on the neighboring subdivision are unacceptable direct consequences of those freedoms, so they are infringed. Even though most brother-sister marriages might not be coerced or produce one-eyed nocturnal predators, most polygamous marriages might not be coerced or require welfare subsidization, and I have nothing against my neighboring subdivision, those are at least potential direct results.

You really believe that? Last time I checked, the majority of states had amended their constitution to explicitly prohibit same sex marriage..

Thats why I'm leery of these supposed polls that show opposition to gay marriage is waning..

Usually when a state puts it to the ballot, the gay marriage initiative comes out on the bottom..



I hate it when people try to compare SSM to interracial marriage. They are not even remotely comparable :rolleyes:

A white man is a man, and a black woman is a woman. There is nothing strange or weird about them wanting to hook up.. As a matter of fact, interracial unions are beneficial to the human race in that they provide greater genetic diversity in the population.. Also, "interracial" (and I use that term ever so lightly) marriages, sex and unions have been taking place all over the World for thousands of years.

Entire nations and continents are filled with "hybrid" or mixed peoples..

Gay marriage on the other hand, is extremely rare in human history. The fact is, the majority of Civilizations/Societies have never allowed gay marriage, because it was considered either useless (or harmful) to Society or unnatural..

Like I said, not even remotely comparable..
They are comparable in one sense - the majority is using the armed might of government to deny others the same freedom they enjoy for no better reason than they find it icky. Or to use a phrase the left associates with money, would-be interracial couples then and would-be gay couples now have more freedom than they need, according to the majority who wished marriages to be same-race then and heterosexual now, having no personal need for the freedom to marriage a person of a different race (then) or the same sex (now).

We are still supposedly free individuals. For government to deny an individual the right to do something, it should have to show some pressing societal need that can only be fulfilled by denying that right. For government to deny an individual the right to do something other individuals are allowed to do, the bar should be much higher. One should not have to prove that something benefits society to not be denied the freedom to do it, and while gay marriage is definitely an aberration historically, so are flush toilets and air conditioning and lower back tattoos and white boys with wooden disks in their ears.

Although, if you disagree with the above, proving a societal benefit isn't that difficult. It's a given that a stable marriage is a benefit to society, especially when raising children. It's a given that children are more secure, and do better, in two-parent homes. It's a given that some gay people will have children - either from a previous hetero marriage, or via adoption, fosterage, or in vitro fertilization or surrogates. With those three givens, it's undeniable that gay marriage would benefit society by making tighter bonds among gay couples with children. You can't fix gay people, with the possible exception of some with borderline same-sex attraction that they find personally objectionable for religious reasons. So your choices are tighter family bonds via gay marriage, looser family bonds via shacking up, or ripping apart families.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
I don't dispute the fact that most of the states in the U.S banned interracial marriage at some point.

My point though, is that gay marriage and interracial marriage are not directly comparable outside of that particular legal context.

And although interracial marriage between whites and blacks were banned, there was still plenty of "mixing" going on. In fact, over 70% of modern day African Americans have white ancestry.

History has shown that whenever different ethnic/racial groups mix together, there is ALWAYS sexual contact between them regardless of the circumstances..

Whether it's Africans in the New World or Jews in Europe.....it doesn't matter.
History shows that whenever people of the same gender are put together there is sexual contact between them. Homosexuality has been noted in basically every society that has ever existed.

This is simply part of the evolution of society's understanding of human relationships. Same sex sexual relationships have existed for all of human history, we are just a little slow on the uptake for them.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Although, if you disagree with the above, proving a societal benefit isn't that difficult. It's a given that a stable marriage is a benefit to society, especially when raising children. It's a given that children are more secure, and do better, in two-parent homes.
And yet liberals have worked to normalize divorce and having children out of wedlock. o_O

It's a given that some gay people will have children - either from a previous hetero marriage, or via adoption, fosterage, or in vitro fertilization or surrogates. With those three givens, it's undeniable that gay marriage would benefit society by making tighter bonds among gay couples with children. You can't fix gay people, with the possible exception of some with borderline same-sex attraction that they find personally objectionable for religious reasons. So your choices are tighter family bonds via gay marriage, looser family bonds via shacking up, or ripping apart families.
Let us deal with your 3 examples.

1.) Suggesting that gay people might have a heterosexual marriage is quite interesting. Kinda makes it seem like a choice.

2.) Again interesting since gay adoption was often banned in the past...

3.) I oppose unmarried people from having children through invitro fertilization or surrogates.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
You really believe that? Last time I checked, the majority of states had amended their constitution to explicitly prohibit same sex marriage..

Thats why I'm leery of these supposed polls that show opposition to gay marriage is waning..

Usually when a state puts it to the ballot, the gay marriage initiative comes out on the bottom..
True except the trend is undeniable, as we already have 5 states that support same sex unions.

I hate it when people try to compare SSM to interracial marriage. They are not even remotely comparable :rolleyes:

A white man is a man, and a black woman is a woman. There is nothing strange or weird about them wanting to hook up.. As a matter of fact, interracial unions are beneficial to the human race in that they provide greater genetic diversity in the population.. Also, "interracial" (and I use that term ever so lightly) marriages, sex and unions have been taking place all over the World for thousands of years.

Entire nations and continents are filled with "hybrid" or mixed peoples..
Interracial unions in the U.S. have a very different history than the rest of the world and isn't comparable or even necessarily relevant. There were state laws on the books disallowing interracial marriage in the U.S. for two centuries, up until the last couple decades. Hell, there were laws against "sodomy" (i.e. gay bashers) that were on the books up until just recently in 2000!

Gay marriage on the other hand, is extremely rare in human history.
An entire irrelevant fact in this discussion, but continue.

The fact is, the majority of Civilizations/Societies have never allowed gay marriage, because it was considered either useless (or harmful) to Society or unnatural..
Like I said, not even remotely comparable..
I've already won if this is your best argument, that it's "useless" or "harmful". How useless or harmful you find it is irrelevant to the fact that gays should not and eventually will not be relegated to 2nd class citizen status because a group of Americans are homophobic enough not to value their genetically-determined lifestyles.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I've already won if this is your best argument, that it's "useless" or "harmful". How useless or harmful you find it is irrelevant to the fact that gays should not and eventually will not be relegated to 2nd class citizen status because a group of Americans are homophobic enough not to value their genetically-determined lifestyles.
Interesting, so you do not think it even matters if gay marriage serves any point to society. Hell, even if its harmful to society we should still allow it o_O

And please provide evidence of any gay gene.:colbert:
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Huh? It's a fact, that is the divorce rate.
It depends on how you look at it. 50% or so of marriages end in divorce, but not 50% of people who get married get a divorce. Certain groups of people tend to rack up 2, 3, 4, or even more divorces, so they skew the numbers a bit.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
We are still supposedly free individuals. For government to deny an individual the right to do something, it should have to show some pressing societal need that can only be fulfilled by denying that right. For government to deny an individual the right to do something other individuals are allowed to do, the bar should be much higher. One should not have to prove that something benefits society to not be denied the freedom to do it, and while gay marriage is definitely an aberration historically, so are flush toilets and air conditioning and lower back tattoos and white boys with wooden disks in their ears.
I agree with you here. I used to be against gay marriage, but when I thought about it, I realized I was only against it based on prejudice and the erroneous notion that gays "chose" to be gay.....something which I no longer believe.

While I will never view gay relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships, I can no longer justify being against gay marriage..
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I agree with you here. I used to be against gay marriage, but when I thought about it, I realized I was only against it based on prejudice and the erroneous notion that gays "chose" to be gay.....something which I no longer believe.

While I will never view gay relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships, I can no longer justify being against gay marriage..
Not all relationships are equals. Its why, for example, you cannot include your drinking buddy on your health insurance.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,530
271
136
It depends on how you look at it. 50% or so of marriages end in divorce, but not 50% of people who get married get a divorce. Certain groups of people tend to rack up 2, 3, 4, or even more divorces, so they skew the numbers a bit.
I see. Based on a quick search it looks like of all first marriages the divorce rate is 41%. Still damn high.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
History shows that whenever people of the same gender are put together there is sexual contact between them. Homosexuality has been noted in basically every society that has ever existed.

This is simply part of the evolution of society's understanding of human relationships. Same sex sexual relationships have existed for all of human history, we are just a little slow on the uptake for them.
Again, another false comparison.

For your analogy to hold true, you would have to assume that homosexuality is inherently equal to heterosexuality.

But that is not true.. Heterosexuality is the normal sexuality in humans, while homosexuality is an abberation caused by an as of yet unknown, genetic defect of some sort.

Science has shown that gays have a different brain structure than heterosexuals for instance..

So homosexuality is obviously not the normal behavior for humans, therefore you cannot directly compare homosexual relationships with interracial ones..

As I explained before though, a white man is still a man, and a black woman is still a woman. A jewish man is still a man, and a catholic woman is still a woman..
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
Again, another false comparison.

For your analogy to hold true, you would have to assume that homosexuality is inherently equal to heterosexuality.

But that is not true.. Heterosexuality is the normal sexuality in humans, while homosexuality is an abberation caused by an as of yet unknown, genetic defect of some sort.

Science has shown that gays have a different brain structure than heterosexuals for instance..

So homosexuality is obviously not the normal behavior for humans, therefore you cannot directly compare homosexual relationships with interracial ones..

As I explained before though, a white man is still a man, and a black woman is still a woman. A jewish man is still a man, and a catholic woman is still a woman..
I don't have to show that it is equal at all. Why would I? You basically said that interracial coupling gained some of its legitimacy from being present whenever races were near each other through history. I was just reminding you that homosexual coupling is also present in all societies throughout history.

The idea that homosexuality must be a genetic defect is simply unsupportable from what we know today. There could be a number of valid evolutionary reasons for populations to have members that do not reproduce. (in fact large numbers of species have exactly that)
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
True except the trend is undeniable, as we already have 5 states that support same sex unions.
5 states against the 39 states that have banned gay marriage....with North Carolina being the latest this year.

Interracial unions in the U.S. have a very different history than the rest of the world and isn't comparable or even necessarily relevant. There were state laws on the books disallowing interracial marriage in the U.S. for two centuries, up until the last couple decades. Hell, there were laws against "sodomy" (i.e. gay bashers) that were on the books up until just recently in 2000!
Actually, the interracial/interethnic unions in the U.S resemble the history of other nations more than you think.. Plenty of nations have enacted prohibitions or bans on marriages based on race, religion or ethnicity throughout history.

And just like the U.S, those laws were totally ineffective and did nothing to stop large spread sexual contact between the populations.

It is normal and natural for a man to desire a woman and vice versa, regardless of religion, ethnicity or race. In fact, differences in ethnicity and race can heighten the attraction between two people, just like it can cause an aversion.

An entire irrelevant fact in this discussion, but continue.
How is that irrelevent? The rarity of gay marriage in human history is a stark contrast to the prevalence of interracial marriage, therefore showing how ridiculous it was to compare the two in the first place..

I've already won if this is your best argument, that it's "useless" or "harmful". How useless or harmful you find it is irrelevant to the fact that gays should not and eventually will not be relegated to 2nd class citizen status because a group of Americans are homophobic enough not to value their genetically-determined lifestyles.
I'm not against gay marriage dude. I used to be, but I'm not anymore.. I decided to change my views mostly because of the overwhelming evidence that shows that homosexuality is a biological condition.

I don't think people should be persecuted or subject to prejudice because they were born a certain way..

However, I still have to admit that homosexuality weirds me out..
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
And yet liberals have worked to normalize divorce and having children out of wedlock. o_O

Let us deal with your 3 examples.

1.) Suggesting that gay people might have a heterosexual marriage is quite interesting. Kinda makes it seem like a choice.

2.) Again interesting since gay adoption was often banned in the past...

3.) I oppose unmarried people from having children through invitro fertilization or surrogates.
Let's give the devil his due; liberals didn't work for having more children out of wedlock, but rather that's a foreseeable consequence of lessening the consequences for doing so. Penalize behavior and you get less, subsidize behavior and you get more. In theory it would be great if we could subsidize those who become single parents needing assistance through no fault of their own and punish those who become single parents needing assistance through their own bad judgments, but setting aside that enormous empowerment of government, the children are equally blameless in both cases. As always, life is just not fair.

For the other, everything we do is a choice, even though the underlying attractions are largely not a choice. And while it's possible to ban gay adoption and limit fertility treatments to straight married couples, it's a pretty hard stomp on individual freedom. And that only allows for children brought from outside into gay households; I don't think many would disagree that removing children from gay but loving households is an evil act.

I believe that just as the free market will from millions of informed, free individual consumer choices form the economy that best fits the society, so too will a society produce from millions of informed, free individual choices form the societal framework that best suits the people in it. Maximize personal liberty and we all benefit. Same with the rule of law; only in the most unusual of cases, such as affirmative action, should government not treat everyone with the same respect, equality of protection, and maximum personal liberty.

I agree with you here. I used to be against gay marriage, but when I thought about it, I realized I was only against it based on prejudice and the erroneous notion that gays "chose" to be gay.....something which I no longer believe.

While I will never view gay relationships as being equal to heterosexual relationships, I can no longer justify being against gay marriage..
I too am a convert, although a few decades back when I first had it explained as a matter of individual freedom and equal protection. It kind of all fits together though; once you stop seeing gay marriage as some sort of bizarre attack on "real" marriage, you start seeing gay people as, well, just people.

You, me and Obama - it's a start. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY