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

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
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.
The legitimacy of interracial couplings/marriages stems primarily from the fact that HETEROSEXUALITY is the default sexuality in humans, and in the end, that trumps all the arbitrary limitations we place upon ourselves when it comes to selecting mates..

Men are men, and women are women. When it comes to sexual attraction, race, ethnicity, religion, social class is often thrown out the window in favor of LUST..

I have my preferences just like any other heterosexual man, but I've found all sorts of women attractive throughout my life. A beautiful woman is a beautiful woman..

I was just reminding you that homosexual coupling is also present in all societies throughout history.
Yes, but homosexuality is not the default sexuality in human beings. A gay man's body is still designed to have sexual intercourse with a woman.. His penis is specifically shaped to penetrate a vagina, and his testes makes sperm cells to fertilize a woman's eggs..

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)
Have you read the theories on the causes of homosexuality? If you have, then you would know that the evidence for homosexuality being biological in nature is overwhelming.

How would the article I linked to be explained, without bringing genetics into it? It's our genes that determine the overall growth of our bodies after all..
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
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.
1.) Umm, you do not just become a single parent through no fault of your own.

2.) Of course liberals do not actually care about children, but allowing women to do whatever they want and get bailed out for it. Mandatory abortions would prevent single parents from being a burden on society without having children starve. Children are just convenient hostages liberals use to support their morally bankrupt ideology.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
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.
Given 2 decades it would be utterly unnecessary to remove children from gay households. Not that I even proposed that.

And gay adoption was banned. I find it rather insidious that unbanning it is now being used as an argument for gay marriage. I rather slippery slope indeed

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.
Maximize personal liberty and those who make bad choices benefit.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,109
20,760
136
The legitimacy of interracial couplings/marriages stems primarily from the fact that HETEROSEXUALITY is the default sexuality in humans, and in the end, that trumps all the arbitrary limitations we place upon ourselves when it comes to selecting mates..

Men are men, and women are women. When it comes to sexual attraction, race, ethnicity, religion, social class is often thrown out the window in favor of LUST..

I have my preferences just like any other heterosexual man, but I've found all sorts of women attractive throughout my life. A beautiful woman is a beautiful woman..
Your declaration for the primacy of gender over other factors is also arbitrary as it is frequently untrue. As I said before, human beings have long displayed a stunning variety of relationships throughout history. Cultural factors have retarded our ability to recognize some of these, but we're growing into it.

Have you read the theories on the causes of homosexuality? If you have, then you would know that the evidence for homosexuality being biological in nature is overwhelming.

How would the article I linked to be explained, without bringing genetics into it? It's our genes that determine the overall growth of our bodies after all..
I have in fact. I would not classify the evidence as 'overwhelming', but there is strong evidence for biology as a determining factor. Biology encompasses much more than genetics. The point I think you are missing is that just because genetics in certain segments of the population differ does not mean that those genes are 'defective'. As I mentioned before, there are numerous species of animals that have non breeding segments of their population. While it may be true that it is a genetic aberration, it is not possible to draw that conclusion from the evidence available.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
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.
If ickyness is the only underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage, then what rational basis exists for denying it to polygamous or group marriages? Or to family members?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If ickyness is the only underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage, then what rational basis exists for denying it to polygamous or group marriages? Or to family members?
The basis for banning family members marrying is that they will produce genetically inferior offspring together. Of course this presupposes that part of marriage is producing offspring together.

If you accept that then gay marriage obviously makes no sense.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
The basis for banning family members marrying is that they will produce genetically inferior offspring together. Of course this presupposes that part of marriage is producing offspring together.
First: So what? Are we to deny people their right to marriage on the basis that we happen to find the type of children they might produce unsettling?

Secondly: Suppose they are in a non-sexual relationship? Two elderly brothers who are taking care of each other in their old age, and who wish to take advantage of whatever legal perks marriage affords.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
First: So what? Are we to deny people their right to marriage on the basis that we happen to find the type of children they might produce unsettling?

Secondly: Suppose they are in a non-sexual relationship? Two elderly brothers who are taking care of each other in their old age, and who wish to take advantage of whatever legal perks marriage affords.
1.) If producing children is an important part of marriage then sure. If 2 people are genetically closely related it is reasonable to prohibit them from marriage.

2.) Sex is generally considered part of marriage. And in some cultures is necessary for the marriage to be considered legitimate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consummation

So 2 is really a part of liberals stretching marriage to mean nothing more than a temporary relationship to get benefits from the government.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,249
683
126
Instead of trying to push more government involvement in religion (in violation of the Constitution), we should instead remove the government involvement in religion.

The government should shift to civil unions only and let religions do the marrying. It is a win for everyone but the idiot extremists on both sides. A simple find/replace on forms is all that is needed to make the change.
Your argument is terrible and goes no where.

Legal state recognized marriages have NOTHING to do with religion. You fundies need to get that through you thick skulls.

Legally recognized marriage, has always been apart of British/American common law. And its about the bundle of rights you get as a married couple.

They aren't forcing churches to recognize gay marriage. Churches don't have to. Churches don't have to recognize any marriage. Allowing gay marriage in no fucking way shape or form abridges religious freedoms. None. Zero. Zilch. Your argument is fatally flawed.

And its more than just changing a form. Changing everything to civil unions, would require changing dozens and dozens of statutes in every state, instead of just 1(actually none if SCotUS ever gets around to hearing the case). It would also require the new issurance of "civil union" licenses to everyone that has a "marriage license." You are talking about wasting billions over semantics.

Furthermore homophobes in the Republican Party dont even want gays to have Civil Unions. Example: see GOP opposing same sex partner benefits at the federal level and and a handful of states. Vast majority of the GOP do NOT want gays to have the same rights.
 
Last edited:

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Your argument is terrible and goes no where.

Legal state recognized marriages have NOTHING to do with religion. You fundies need to get that through you thick skulls.

Legally recognized marriage, has always been apart of British/American common law. And its about the bundle of rights you get as a married couple.
And it has always been between a man and a woman. And this was so inherent to the definition of marriage that it was only recently necessary to spell it out.

Furthermore homophobes in the Republican Party dont even want gays to have Civil Unions. Example: see GOP opposing same sex partner benefits at the federal level and and a handful of states. Vast majority of the GOP do NOT want gays to have the same rights.
They also do not want to grant partner benefits to drinking buddies. Does that make them Beerophobes?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
Your declaration for the primacy of gender over other factors is also arbitrary as it is frequently untrue. As I said before, human beings have long displayed a stunning variety of relationships throughout history. Cultural factors have retarded our ability to recognize some of these, but we're growing into it.
Are you serious? Take a step back and look at what you just said..

You essentially disagreed with me that gender is the motivating factor for almost all of the romantic or sexual relationships that occur in the World.. Last time I checked, the human species reproduces sexually and heterosexual relationships are by far the most dominant..

And define frequently.. According to most studies, gays, bisexuals and other non heteros account for anywhere from 2 to 4% of the human population..

You're not one of those,"we're all secretly bisexual but we just don't know it" types are you? o_O

I have in fact. I would not classify the evidence as 'overwhelming', but there is strong evidence for biology as a determining factor. Biology encompasses much more than genetics. The point I think you are missing is that just because genetics in certain segments of the population differ does not mean that those genes are 'defective'. As I mentioned before, there are numerous species of animals that have non breeding segments of their population. While it may be true that it is a genetic aberration, it is not possible to draw that conclusion from the evidence available.
Biology encompasses more than genetics yes, but genetics essentially determines our biology because it's our genes that contains the information necessary for our growth as an organism.

In fact, I remember reading that prenatal hormone imbalance was the most likely cause of homosexuality, since exposure to sex hormones in the womb is what causes us to develop our sexual characteristics.

Without exposure to testosterone, a male fetus would be born looking just like a female..

What other than genes controls the mechanism for the release of these sex hormones? Environmental factors perhaps?

Another key piece of evidence on why I think homosexuality is the result of a defect of some sort, because it affects males more than females, to the tune of 3:1 or more.

There are more gay men than lesbians, which could be due to the fact that male fetuses must undergo additional stages in the womb to become fully male, which increases the likelihood of something going awry.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
No, there are a lot of smart people who think the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. Why do you think the government should continue to legislate a religious ceremony into legal force?
I agree, civil unions for all. Let people define their own "marriages".

But I don't see how government allowing gay marriages is interfering with religion. They can't force a religion to marry gays. And there are religions that do perform gay marriages, and they are being discriminated against.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I agree, civil unions for all. Let people define their own "marriages".
Except that marriage is not and has never been something that any individual person defined for themselves.

Why don't you just be honest and say that you do not think any relationships are "special". And in that case do away with government recognition of marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever else you want to call it.

But I don't see how government allowing gay marriages is interfering with religion. They can't force a religion to marry gays. And there are religions that do perform gay marriages, and they are being discriminated against.
Not true. If a church decides to "marry" a same-sex couple government stormtroops will not show up and lead a homophobic beat down. In fact they are treated exactly the same way you want churches that do not want same-sex marriage to be treated.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
Instead of trying to push more government involvement in religion (in violation of the Constitution), we should instead remove the government involvement in religion.

The government should shift to civil unions only and let religions do the marrying. It is a win for everyone but the idiot extremists on both sides. A simple find/replace on forms is all that is needed to make the change.
Rhetorical dancing on the head of a pin is your new specialty, huh?

The religious & civil aspects of marriage were once the same thing, when church & state were basically the same thing. The whole concept of Marriage dates from that, and still carries special meaning, which is why gay people want it for themselves, and why "conservatives" want to keep it from them.

Your little song & dance is no different.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Why don't you just be honest and say that you do not think any relationships are "special". And in that case do away with government recognition of marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever else you want to call it.
Why don't you be honest and admit that you hate women and homosexuals?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I agree, civil unions for all. Let people define their own "marriages".

But I don't see how government allowing gay marriages is interfering with religion. They can't force a religion to marry gays. And there are religions that do perform gay marriages, and they are being discriminated against.
Because, in the US, marriage was a religious institution prior to the government stepping in and giving the force of law beind the legal institution. That should have never happened.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Rhetorical dancing on the head of a pin is your new specialty, huh?

The religious & civil aspects of marriage were once the same thing, when church & state were basically the same thing. The whole concept of Marriage dates from that, and still carries special meaning, which is why gay people want it for themselves, and why "conservatives" want to keep it from them.

Your little song & dance is no different.
Please show me when the government of the US and one of the religions in the US were the same thing. If you cannot, then admit you are talking out your butt.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,657
13,735
136
And define frequently.. According to most studies, gays, bisexuals and other non heteros account for anywhere from 2 to 4% of the human population..
Unsupported statement represented as fact.

Sexual orientation & preference exist as as a continuum. Our own conceptualizations of gay & straight are completely inadequate as descriptors.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,911
405
126
Except that marriage is not and has never been something that any individual person defined for themselves.
Quite the contrary. Marriage means something distinctly unique to every single individual. You do not get to tell others what other things mean to them. It is the height of idiocy to suppose that one could, and no surprise, therefore, to hear it from the likes of you.

Why don't you just be honest and say that you do not think any relationships are "special". And in that case do away with government recognition of marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever else you want to call it.
Why should that follow, brainiac?
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Unsupported statement represented as fact.

Sexual orientation & preference exist as as a continuum. Our own conceptualizations of gay & straight are completely inadequate as descriptors.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/9-million-in-U-S-are-gay-researcher-estimates-2376422.php
Gary Gates, who works for the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, said in a report released Thursday that about 3.5 percent of Americans identify themselves in surveys as gay, lesbian or bisexual.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Quite the contrary. Marriage means something distinctly unique to every single individual. You do not get to tell others what other things mean to them. It is the height of idiocy to suppose that one could, and no surprise, therefore, to hear it from the likes of you.
Marriage is an institution created by society, which defines what it means. This is so obvious I do not know why it needs explaining.

Why should that follow, brainiac?
If you do not think certain relationships are special there is no reason to grant special privileges to them. Marriage inherently discriminates against single people. If you think all discrimination is wrong marriage (or whatever you feel like calling it) should be eliminated.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,991
9
81
Marriage is an institution created by society, which defines what it means. This is so obvious I do not know why it needs explaining.
Who is Society and what is the best way about getting to about punching him (her?) in the face for all his ills today?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,911
405
126
Marriage is an institution created by society, which defines what it means. This is so obvious I do not know why it needs explaining.
Gibberish. "Marriage" is a word in human language, and as a consequence it's meaning is unique to each and every speaker. There does exist a legal institution, to be sure, but it's meaning is for each person to decide for themselves, numbnuts.



If you do not think certain relationships are special there is no reason to grant special privileges to them.
Who's getting special privileges?

Marriage inherently discriminates against single people.
Horsefeathers. If you think I'm gonna swallow that bit of nonsense you're going to have to explain -- your simple say-so is about as worthless as anything else I can conceive.

If you think all discrimination is wrong marriage (or whatever you feel like calling it) should be eliminated.
I do not think all discrimination is wrong, and I don't think you'll find many that would agree. It would appear that you are arguing against a caricature in your imagination.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,050
850
126
Unsupported statement represented as fact.
There are no facts concerning gay population, only studies....of which most state that the gay (as in people that identify as gay) population is anywhere from 2 > 4%..

Source

Source

Of course if you include people that have engaged in same sex behavior, then the numbers are much greater....but merely engaging in same sex behavior does not make one gay..

Sexual orientation & preference exist as as a continuum. Our own conceptualizations of gay & straight are completely inadequate as descriptors.
Which is B.S.. Don't tell me you're one of those people that believes we're all secretly bisexual but we just don't know it yet :rolleyes:

Sexual orientation and preference is biologically fixed. Sexual behavior however is not..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY