This is the best speech on gay marriage

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

Changing a law does not force one to change their beliefs. Did racism suddenly stop after civil rights laws?

Right now, the debate is mainly about whether marriage should be redefined as a social contract between two people in love, as opposed to a strict woman-man definition.

Republicans cast marriage as some timeless honorable ceremony, when in many cases marriages were set up by parents with no choice by their children, in order to cement alliances. Marriage as an ins ution has often changed; to deny this is somewhat ridiculous. Some members of society want to change it in another new and radical way. They will win if they gain the popular opinion, as I believe they will some twenty years from now.

I mean, look at diamond engagement rings. Now a de facto courting procedure, but in terms of history, it's relatively new.

[mogrovejo]

Changing a law does not force one to change their beliefs.

Okay, but that's not what I said.

The theory that changing the law would lead to a change of mentalities - and that it would be a good thing - was outlined very explicitly and it wasn't by me.

In my view it's repugnant to liberty is to use the law (emblematic of the power of state) to provoke changes on the beliefs of individuals (even if as a proxy).

Ultimately, that's the cause of the proponents of the estatization of the gay marriage - not some kind of abstract legal equality. I strongly suspect that if the "legal rights" currently attributed to married people were entirely repealed (as they should be, there's no reason for the state to favour people who decide to marry) they'd still want to be allowed to marry. Why don't they defend that instead? What they really want is other people to be more "tolerant" towards them (clearly missing the meaning of tolerance; what they want is acceptance or at least acriticism). Heck, some of them even defend the criminalization of phobia. If this isn't totalitarianism, what is it?

[jacobdrj]

If marriage is purely contractual, than why is it illegal for people to 'marry themselves' in ceremonies that aren't recognized by the state.
Further, why is marriage the only contract that exists between people taking care of each other? In a purely non-sexual context, what is wrong with the 'civil union' for, say, neighbors wanting to share responsibility for one's children?

[CuckingFunt]

I'm not sure how using the coercive power of the state to change the world-view or the beliefs of individuals is a goal of merit. Generally that's the modus operandi of totalitarian states.

That's not at all what I suggested should take place. You mentioned that no one wanted to criminalize the sexual act and I merely pointed out that not only does that at ude exist, it is I feel directly connected to the fact that discrimination and negative at udes toward the gay community are normalized by the current legal discrepancies.

Okay, but that's not what I said.

The theory that changing the law would lead to a change of mentalities - and that it would be a good thing - was outlined very explicitly and it wasn't by me.

In my view it's repugnant to liberty is to use the law (emblematic of the power of state) to provoke changes on the beliefs of individuals (even if as a proxy).

Again, all I'm advocating is providing equal/identical access to the rights associated with a legally recognized marriage for all consenting adults. I feel that, were this to happen, many (not all) negative at udes toward alternative sexualities would change over time. I never, at any point in my post, suggested that this change should be the reason we seek equality or a change in policy, however. It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that tolerance be legally guaranteed or enforced, but so would it be ridiculous to suggest that a natural increase in tolerance/acceptance would somehow be bad or damaging to the country.

Ultimately, that's the cause of the proponents of the estatization of the gay marriage - not some kind of abstract legal equality. I strongly suspect that if the "legal rights" currently attributed to married people were entirely repealed (as they should be, there's no reason for the state to favour people who decide to marry) they'd still want to be allowed to marry. Why don't they defend that instead? What they really want is other people to be more "tolerant" towards them (clearly missing the meaning of tolerance; what they want is acceptance or at least acriticism). Heck, some of them even defend the criminalization of phobia. If this isn't totalitarianism, what is it?

It's both naive and deceptive to treat this as an "us" versus "them" fight. The LGBTQI community isn't some sort of hive mind all fighting for the same thing or for the same reason. Nor are we fighting this issue alone -- without heterosexual allies, it wouldn't even have gotten this far.

[LnGrrrR]

Mogro, using your hypothetical, if straight people lost the right to marry, do you think they would fight for the right to marry because they wanted to be accepted? Or would they want o marry because it is a statement of their love, recognized by the state?

Gay people would like the right to use the word marry, becase their intentions towards their partner are the same as straight people. To decalre their love in a legally binding fashion, under the eyes of family and the state.

It is a recognition of the validity of ther coupling as
well.

[admiralsnackbar]

Really? I'd guess that marriage has been around way before the modern state. And I strongly suspect that every day millions of contracts are celebrated without any kind of interference from the state.

That's great, Ron Paul, but what does that have to do with the question I was answering?

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't know about sexuality. But sexual acts are certainly a choice. But what's the point? It's not like people want to criminalize sexual sex.

Sec. 21.06. SEXUAL CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

The statute is now unenforceable, but that's only been the case since 2003.

[Mr. Peabody]

Gays have the exact same rights I do. Go marry the opposite gender. Nobody is stopping them. So your logic is flawed


You will then say, "but gays want to marry same sex genders!"

so then that IS a redefinition of MARRIAGE.

Marriage = man and woman

I think that's the same argument that was used to support anti-miscegenation laws - "Interracial couples have the same rights I do. Go marry within your race. Nobody is stopping them. You will then say, but interracial couples want to marry other races! so then that is a redefinition of marriage."

[AussieFanKurt]

^^ makes a good point. Any old bull is used to descriminate and stop marriages that can be perfectly moral, legal and happy courtships

[spursncowboys]

I think that's the same argument that was used to support anti-miscegenation laws - "Interracial couples have the same rights I do. Go marry within your race. Nobody is stopping them. You will then say, but interracial couples want to marry other races! so then that is a redefinition of marriage."

why do gays always try and create a similarity with racism? Maybe if you made your discussion in it's own right, people might take it more serious. race changes nothing from one man and one woman. the definition stays the same.

[George Gervin's Afro]

why do gays always try and create a similarity with racism? Maybe if you made your discussion in it's own right, people might take it more serious. race changes nothing from one man and one woman. the definition stays the same.

why do you look at gays differently than most sane people do?

[spursncowboys]

why do you look at gays differently than most sane people do?

way to not get personal, troll.

[Spawn]

all this bull . How about we just end governmental benefits that marriage brings altogether. Lets put that on the ballot.

[spursncowboys]

all this bull . How about we just end governmental benefits that marriage brings altogether. Lets put that on the ballot.

Why? If it is only to be fair, then what is fair for over 90% of marriages to be denied? Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.

[spursncowboys]

Is our government in the business of making things fair?

[atxrocker]

(CNN) -- As a gay man in Uganda, Frank Mugisha is used to the taunts, the slurs and the daily harassment of neighbors and friends.

But if a new bill proposed in the east African country becomes law, Mugisha could be put away for life, or worse, put to death for having sex with another man.

"Right now, you can't go to places that are crowded, because the mob can attack us or even burn us. We can't walk alone. We are ostracized by relatives. But if this bill passes, it will become impossible for me to live here at all. And that part hurts the most," Mugisha said.

The Anti- sexuality Bill features several provisions that human rights groups say would spur a witch hunt of sexuals in the country:

• Gays and lesbians convicted of having gay sex would be sentenced, at minimum, to life in prison

• People who test positive for HIV may be executed

• sexuals who have sex with a minor, or engage in sexual sex more than once, may also receive the death penalty

• The bill forbids the "promotion of sexuality," which in effect bans organizations working in HIV and AIDS prevention

• Anyone who knows of sexual activity taking place but does not report it would risk up to three years in prison

"Who will go to HIV testing if he knows that he will suffer the death sentence?" Elizabeth Mataka, the U.N. Special Envoy on AIDS in Africa, told reporters last week. "The law will drive them away from seeking counseling and testing services."

sexuality is already illegal in Uganda under colonial-era laws. But the bill, introduced in October, is intended to put more teeth into prosecuting violators.

It applies even to Ugandans participating in same-sex acts in countries where such behavior is legal.

"They are supposed to be brought back to Uganda and convicted here. The government is putting sexuality on the level of treason," Mugisha said.

Lawmakers have indicated that they will pass the bill before year's end.

It has the blessing of many religious leaders -- Muslim and Christian -- in a country where a July poll found 95 percent opposed to legalizing sexuality.

The Rev. Esau Omara, a senior church leader, said over the weekend that any lawmaker opposing the bill will pay for it during the next election, according to local newspaper reports.

And a leading Muslim cleric, Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, has called for gays to be rounded up and banished to an island until they die.

Several media outlets also have inflamed sentiments in recent months by publicly pointing out gays and lesbians.

Who will go to HIV testing if he knows that he will suffer the death sentence?

--Elizabeth Mataka
In April, the Observer newspaper published tips to help readers spot sexuals. And over the summer, the Red Pepper tabloid outed 45 gays and lesbians.

Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni has not publicly stated his position on the bill, but last month blamed foreign influence in promoting and funding sexuality.

"It is true that, if the president has said that, he must have information that European nations are promoting ( sexuality) and recruiting sexuals," government spokesman Fred Opolot said. "You must note that the president or the legislators are responding to the concern of the citizenry of the country."

At the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad and Tobago late last month, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he pulled aside Museveni to deplore the bill.

"We find them inconsistent with, frankly, I think any reasonable understanding of human rights, and I was very clear on that with the president of Uganda," Harper told reporters.

In the United States, a coalition of Christian leaders released a statement Monday denouncing the bill.

"Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of sexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children, worthy of respect and love," the statement read.

Human rights groups have called on Western nations to withhold aid from Uganda if the measure passes. About 40 percent of the country's budget comes from international aid.

"This draft bill is clearly an attempt to divide and weaken civil society by striking at one of its most marginalized groups," said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at the New York-based Human Rights Watch. "The government may be starting here, but who will be next?"

Opolot, the government spokesman, said consideration of the bill in parliament is merely "democracy at work."

"We as a country are engaging and debating a pertinent issue," he said. "So if a foreign country chooses to cut aid simply because Uganda is debating its destiny, then it is quite outrageous and quite wrong."

Mugisha, who now heads the group Sexual Minority of Uganda, said he is working with lawyers and other activists to change minds and defeat the measure.

"I have put a lot of effort in this struggle. I just want to live freely every day," he said. "I want to be happy knowing that if I'm going to meet someone, I'm not going to be taken to jail forever."

[mogrovejo]

That's great, Ron Paul, but what does that have to do with the question I was answering?

I have no idea. I was replying to your statements and refuting them. If you disagree with my refutation, feel free to explain why.

Why are you calling me Ron Paul? I'm not Ron Paul, thank God.

Mogro, using your hypothetical, if straight people lost the right to marry, do you think they would fight for the right to marry because they wanted to be accepted? Or would they want o marry because it is a statement of their love, recognized by the state?

Gay people would like the right to use the word marry, becase their intentions towards their partner are the same as straight people. To declare their love in a legally binding fashion, under the eyes of family and the state.

It is a recognition of the validity of ther coupling aswell.

I have no idea. I think people would do the same they were doing before marriage became a state-sanctioned agreement. Why wouldn't they?

Why exactly do you think it's necessary that the state serves as a partner in that particular kind of agreement? Is your thesis that individuals may use the state as a tool to promote their particular world-views and their individuals goals? Because that's what this is. How exactly do you justify that? By involving the state, you're involving everybody, even those individuals who may held strong anti-marriage views. Why should those people be forced to participate in a thing they despise or believe to be nocive?

I still don't understand your position: do you think it's admissible to defend the enacting of certain legislation with the ultimate goal of changing mentalities and set of beliefs or not? Only if that change is seen by you as positive?

That's not at all what I suggested should take place.

I'm sorry, but I disagree and I think it was the most proper hermeneutics of what you wrote. Please re-read your post. You've even traced an analogy with racism, stating that enacting certain legislation changes eventually produced a change of the views of individuals towards racial differences.

You mentioned that no one wanted to criminalize the sexual act and I merely pointed out that not only does that at ude exist, it is I feel directly connected to the fact that discrimination and negative at udes toward the gay community are normalized by the current legal discrepancies.

I don't know if people want to criminalize sexual acts. But if so, that's an whole different issue.

I'm not sure if there's proof of a causation effect between the existing marriage legislation and the alleged discrimination and negative at udes towards the gay community, whatever the gay community is. What I do believe is that individuals have the right to nurture negative at udes against gays, heterosexuals or those who are antagonistic towards the practice of sexual acts and discriminate, positively or negatively, towards them.

Again, all I'm advocating is providing equal/identical access to the rights associated with a legally recognized marriage for all consenting adults.

By rights you mean the privileges granted to those who are married? I can't think of a single reason for the existence of those privileges, as I've said before. Extending those privileges to more people would only compound the mistake. But I do agree that would be a less harmful situation than the attempt to use the government to re-define what marriage is.

I feel that, were this to happen, many (not all) negative at udes toward alternative sexualities would change over time. I never, at any point in my post, suggested that this change should be the reason we seek equality or a change in policy, however. It would be ridiculous of me to suggest that tolerance be legally guaranteed or enforced, but so would it be ridiculous to suggest that a natural increase in tolerance/acceptance would somehow be bad or damaging to the country.

I do agree that changes in the legislation can lead to changes in the social interaction - to put it in formal terms, thesis, that should be strictly confined to the administration of essential services are often used as a way to re-model the nomos, the spontaneous evolution of the habits and manners of the people.

But that's exactly the reason why we should restrain ourselves from using that tool. You are probably convinced that in this case it would serve a good, just cause. However, there's nothing as over-rated in the realm of politics as good intentions - unintended consequences happen all the time. More importantly, people have confliting views of what is good or bad for a country. The state should not be at the service of any of the factions. The philosophical underground is the same that was used by totalitarian regimes to promote ideas like "the new man" or the "Lebensunwertes Leben".

The concept of "bad/good to the country" itself is scary to me. What's exactly "the country"? There is never consensus about what is good or bad for the country.

It's both naive and deceptive to treat this as an "us" versus "them" fight.

Why? There are people who support the estatization of different types of marriage with the purpose of changing mentalities and those who oppose it. Just like it happens with many others political issue. A necessary simplification sure, there are always those who are agnostic or undecided, but naive or deceptive?

The LGBTQI community isn't some sort of hive mind all fighting for the same thing or for the same reason. Nor are we fighting this issue alone -- without heterosexual allies, it wouldn't even have gotten this far.

Oh, you mean us as "LFHBQTHS community" and them as "citizens excluded from the LQBTISISH community"? I don't think of political problems under that mindframe, unlike you apparently do. What people do in bed is immaterial for any political discussion.

[mogrovejo]

If marriage is purely contractual, than why is it illegal for people to 'marry themselves' in ceremonies that aren't recognized by the state.
Further, why is marriage the only contract that exists between people taking care of each other? In a purely non-sexual context, what is wrong with the 'civil union' for, say, neighbors wanting to share responsibility for one's children?

Is it? The state recognition of marriage is an invention of Calvinism - in its origins a form of theocracy, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in countries of anglo-saxonic/protestant cultures.

That's the Hegelian view of marriage - more than a contract, or, more precisely, as a contract that transcends the standpoint of a contract.

Although I don't deny Hegel's views that there's a very particular symbolic value inherent to marriage, making it a special type of contract , I don't think there's a persuasive argument that it should lead to a special protection by the state. I'd rather side with Locke's minimalist view of marriage as no less than a contract.

[rjv]

Once again, where is your argument that gays have no choice in who they suck off?

why do you demand proof from others when you offer none of your own ?

[rjv]

Is it? The state recognition of marriage is an invention of Calvinism - in its origins a form of theocracy, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in countries of anglo-saxonic/protestant cultures.

That's the Hegelian view of marriage - more than a contract, or, more precisely, as a contract that transcends the standpoint of a contract.

Although I don't deny Hegel's views that there's a very particular symbolic value inherent to marriage, making it a special type of contract , I don't think there's a persuasive argument that it should lead to a special protection by the state. I'd rather side with Locke's minimalist view of marriage as no less than a contract.

there really is no point in the attempt to link any philosophical origin to the contract of marriage as in today's times, the financial applications of matrimony far outweigh any ideological ones.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why? If it is only to be fair, then what is fair for over 90% of marriages to be denied? Also our society should promote a healthy marriage, because that benefits everyone.

My definition of a healthy marriage (man and a woman).

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is our government in the business of making things fair?

To esnure no one is discriminated against? I'd say yes.

[TheProfessor]

Is our government in the business of making things fair?

See: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[jacobdrj]

there really is no point in the attempt to link any philosophical origin to the contract of marriage as in today's times, the financial applications of matrimony far outweigh any ideological ones.

Then that would be a surefire reason for civil unions, and conventional marriage be damned.

[jacobdrj]

If it is just a contract (IMHO that is what it is) than it is like any other contract. Any number of consenting parties can enter into this contract. If it is some sort of state sanctioning of religion, than any state regulation of marriage is uncons utional according to the 1st ammendment.