FRC: Comparing the Lifestyles of sexual Couples to Married Couples

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't recall sexuality ever being illegal at the federal level.

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' & prior related policies, to begin with.

[Phenomanul]

That is precisely what you want to do.

You now want a marriage quota that gay couples much reach before you want to allow them to marry. You're doing the exact same thing that the fatally flawed "study" did.

Congratulations.

By your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either because the majority of their relationships don't end up in marriage either. It's completely disingenuous.

ummm... chumpy... way to twist my argument (if you even followed it). That's not what I'm saying at all...

I've mentioned repeatedly that I have no qualms about granting sexuals the same priviledges extended to heterosexual couples... (with the exception of the children issue)

Quota?

All of my references to the democratic system have been in defense of employing my right to influence the governing laws of the land. A right your side continually tries to lobby against. "You can't impose your morallity on others..." etc... etc... etc.... While I certainly don't do that, I have a right to vote whatever way suits my beliefs. Just as sexuals have the right to vote whatever way suits them...

But go ahead and jump to conclusions... you always do, and get all snide, and chippy when called out for it.

[FromWayDowntown]

When it concerns the denial of basic human rights... I agree. Hence the Bill of Rights.

What are "basic human rights?" Where is the line of demarcation between something that is a basic human right and immune from governmental intrusion and something that is more akin to a privilege afforded by government?

What's become problematic to the position that marriage is not a "right," is a long history of according benefits (as previously discussed) to those who enjoy that relationship without making those benefits available to those do not and the subsequent understanding (a rather reasonable and understandable one, I think) that if government chooses to define the availability of benefits by status, the opportunity to avail oneself of the status becomes a right. That right -- like almost any other -- should be subject to infringement only when compelling justifications for limitation exist (i.e., the legal incapacity of a party to enter into that status (why minors cannot marry) or the deleterious effects that could follow to innocent third parties if the status is permitted (why there are compelling reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages)).

And what this thread has been about, really, is arguing whether there are compelling justifications to prohibit marriages of same-sex couples who would otherwise qualify for marriage.

If government chooses to offer benefits based on the choice to marry, it seems implausible to me that it can functionally prohibit qualifying couples from attaining that status based on nothing other than the gender of the individuals in that relationship. Government can get out of the business of making marriage a monetarily-beneficial relationship and that would, frankly, solve most of these problems. But if it chooses to confer benefits based on the existence of a marriage, I'm not sure it can engage in gender-based discrimination in determining who can attain that status.

[Blake]

I'm not talking about whether they work or not... those were assumptions being made by the article.

I'm talking about their disposition to enter those agreements in the first place.

why is their disposition to enter those agreements an issue?

[ChumpDumper]

ummm... chumpy... way to twist my argument (if you even followed it). That's not what I'm saying at all...

I've mentioned repeatedly that I have no qualms about granting sexuals the same priviledges extended to heterosexual couples... (with the exception of the children issue)

Quota?

All of my references to the democratic system have been in defense of employing my right to influence the governing laws of the land. A right your side continually tries to lobby against. "You can't impose your morallity on others..." etc... etc... etc.... While I certainly don't do that, I have a right to vote whatever way suits my beliefs. Just as sexuals have the right to vote whatever way suits them...

But go ahead and jump to conclusions... you always do, and get all snide, and chippy when called out for it.

Your post had nothing to do with simply exercising your right as a voter -- you were giving a rationale why voters might deny those rights to sexuals -- because most of them won't get married anyway.

It was a weak one.

Now you are being disingenuous about what you were posting. Simply voting the way you feel has nothing to do with any statistic, so there would be no reason to bring them up.

[Marcus Bryant]

Basic human right = in pussy other than your wife's.

End of civilization = s.

How about the state leaves the marriage business?

[Blake]

That is precisely what you want to do.

You now want a marriage quota that gay couples much reach before you want to allow them to marry. You're doing the exact same thing that the fatally flawed "study" did.

Congratulations.

By your logic, heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry either because the majority of their relationships don't end up in marriage either. It's completely disingenuous.

I'm would love to know what the quota is....

snc, care to take a shot at a quota?

[Blake]

IMO the adoption of children for growth in that environment is the only one that sticks out like a sore thumb - as not relating to the others.

Why is this a concern to you?

[Blake]

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' & prior related policies, to begin with.

"don't ask, don't tell" pertains to gays in the military.

You cannot be thrown in jail for telling someone you are gay.

[Phenomanul]

Just because an elected official put their vote forward doesn't mean we can assume that it truly represents everyone as a whole or majority. This has been proven time and time again. It doesn't protect jack and jack from being dealt a raw hand from their boss or their coworkers who are likely still bigots. I'm certain that even if gay marriage were allowed any where in the states that there would be thousands that still wouldn't come forward because of the potential repercussions from the work place...or even their personal lives.

If we legalized same sex marriages do you really think the discrimination would stop? How can you reasonably assume that it isn't prevalent in a place like Sweden....aren't they predominately Roman Catholic? Regardless of that...its still an odd assumption.

Ever since you posted your assumption of easy going for these people outside of the states I've been more than interested in the reality of that. I think if you take the time to look around those people are still fighting quite the war against discrimination. Their hate crimes, particularly gay ones aren't too far off percentage wise from where we're at here. Which supports my idea that their legal rights are just a small victory in the bigger picture for equality.

People. Many. Thousands if not millions still discriminated against blacks even when they were granted their freedoms. Same with women and their rights. It took decades of being "legal" before society as a whole begin to accept the fact that they should or would be on the same playing field. Many argue that its still not fair or equal.

On the other note. Marijuana is now legal in many more capacities than it once was. More and more states are pushing to either decriminalize it or make it legal altogether. So "the third" more or less is becoming a factor and/or the fat cats supposedly representing them.

I'm not discounting the notion that discrimination still exists (or even that it took decades for blacks and women to be treated on a level-playing field). All I suggested was that the anti-gay sentiment in Sweden and Holland is not as prevalent as you asserted (speculated). What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that the people surveyed, people who are obviously open about their sexuality, are afraid to 'legitimize' their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage... They're already in the open about it. Especially when the government protects their choice... I actually went back to research the provisions of the Dutch law referenced in the article (the one enacted in 2003). Married sexuals have in effect been given almost every provision extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Including protection against harrasment at work. I'm not nearly as familiar with their laws, so I don't really know if they are suffering from lack of any other provisions... But the list seemed to be pretty broad and extensive.

[Marcus Bryant]

"don't ask, don't tell" pertains to gays in the military.

You cannot be thrown in jail for telling someone you are gay.

Once upon a time you could and without recourse at the federal level that stood. Next.

[Blake]

I'm not discounting the notion that discrimination still exists (or even that it took decades for blacks and women to be treated on a level-playing field). All I suggested was that the anti-gay sentiment in Sweden and Holland is not as prevalent as you asserted (speculated). What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that the people surveyed, people who are obviously open about their sexuality, are afraid to 'legitimize' their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage... They're already in the open about it. Especially when the government protects their choice... I actually went back to research the provisions of the Dutch law referenced in the article (the one enacted in 2003). Married sexuals have in effect been given almost every provision extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Including protection against harrasment at work. I'm not nearly as familiar with their laws, so I don't really know if they are suffering from lack of any other provisions... But the list seemed to be pretty broad and extensive.

I'm trying to figure out why you keep bringing this up if you don't care about it.

The relatively low number of sexuals running to the altar is not a valid argument against gay marriage.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm not discounting the notion that discrimination still exists (or even that it took decades for blacks and women to be treated on a level-playing field). All I suggested was that the anti-gay sentiment in Sweden and Holland is not as prevalent as you asserted (speculated). What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that the people surveyed, people who are obviously open about their sexuality, are afraid to 'legitimize' their relationships via state-sanctioned marriage... They're already in the open about it. Especially when the government protects their choice... I actually went back to research the provisions of the Dutch law referenced in the article (the one enacted in 2003). Married sexuals have in effect been given almost every provision extended to their heterosexual counterparts. Including protection against harrasment at work. I'm not nearly as familiar with their laws, so I don't really know if they are suffering from lack of any other provisions... But the list seemed to be pretty broad and extensive.

A lot here to talk about just one simple aspect of your point I'll touch on. Being openly gay for a poll isn't the same as being openly gay at the work place or openly gay to everyone else. If I had a permit for medical marijuana in Cali I wouldn't tell my employer about it. Its not worth the risk. Perhaps if down the road it became the norm I wouldn't mind being so open about it. Time would tell. Laws against discrimination are certainly beneficial but what good are they when you've been fired for some trumped up load of crap and your rent is due in two weeks.

[Phenomanul]

Your post had nothing to do with simply exercising your right as a voter -- you were giving a rationale why voters might deny those rights to sexuals -- because most of them won't get married anyway.

It was a weak one.

Now you are being disingenuous about what you were posting. Simply voting the way you feel has nothing to do with any statistic, so there would be no reason to bring them up.

I never made that claim.

Post my posts in the order leading up to the framework you are suggesting. I can almost guarantee that you are reading it through your usual "I must always win the argument" goggles.

If you are referring to my response to B2B... that had nothing to do with sexual rights denial... and everything to do with addressing the alleged prevalence of anti-gay sentiment in countries that have in effect voted to grant sexual marriages (and even adoption) there. If they voted to let those provisions pass through the legislation, they must not be as anti-gay as B2B originally suggested. It had nothing to do with quotas, or denying them anything here. ¿Comprende ahora?

Geeesh... way to build a strawman CD. Your accusation was neither here nor there.

[Blake]

Once upon a time you could and without recourse at the federal level that stood. Next.

state and local level laws.

I was just wondering why you were asking about sex in the Bill of Rights or Cons ution when this thread really isn't about gay sex.

[Phenomanul]

I'm trying to figure out why you keep bringing this up if you don't care about it.

The relatively low number of sexuals running to the altar is not a valid argument against gay marriage.

Just show me where I said they shouldn't get married.

[Marcus Bryant]

state and local level laws.

Doesn't matter.

I was just wondering why you were asking about sex in the Bill of Rights or Cons ution when this thread really isn't about gay sex.

Yet the topic is.

[Blake]

Just show me where I said they shouldn't get married.

so you are indifferent yourself. you are simply justifying the OP's position.

Got it.

[Marcus Bryant]

So either the state penalizes sins (well, certain ones found unfavorable by a majority) or it insists on equality in everything to extremes. How about the state gets out of the matter altogether? Obviously American politics are being discussed, for liberty is not considered.

[Blake]

Yet the topic is.

no it's not, but I won't stop you from believing it is.

[Marcus Bryant]

no it's not, but I won't stop you from believing it is.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...29&postcount=1

MONOGAMY VS. PROMISCUITY: SEXUAL PARTNERS OUTSIDE OF THE RELATIONSHIP

HEALTH RISKS

Duh.

[Phenomanul]

What are "basic human rights?" Where is the line of demarcation between something that is a basic human right and immune from governmental intrusion and something that is more akin to a privilege afforded by government?

What's become problematic to the position that marriage is not a "right," is a long history of according benefits (as previously discussed) to those who enjoy that relationship without making those benefits available to those do not and the subsequent understanding (a rather reasonable and understandable one, I think) that if government chooses to define the availability of benefits by status, the opportunity to avail oneself of the status becomes a right. That right -- like almost any other -- should be subject to infringement only when compelling justifications for limitation exist (i.e., the legal incapacity of a party to enter into that status (why minors cannot marry) or the deleterious effects that could follow to innocent third parties if the status is permitted (why there are compelling reasons to prohibit incestuous marriages)).

And what this thread has been about, really, is arguing whether there are compelling justifications to prohibit marriages of same-sex couples who would otherwise qualify for marriage.

If government chooses to offer benefits based on the choice to marry, it seems implausible to me that it can functionally prohibit qualifying couples from attaining that status based on nothing other than the gender of the individuals in that relationship. Government can get out of the business of making marriage a monetarily-beneficial relationship and that would, frankly, solve most of these problems. But if it chooses to confer benefits based on the existence of a marriage, I'm not sure it can engage in gender-based discrimination in determining who can attain that status.

I can agree with most of this... This might be a bit of a red-herring, but if most of Americans justified murder, that still wouldn't make it right. If the laws couldn't help you, and the government had all but abandoned its protection of that right, and the laws in effect sanctioned it, who would step up to voice their dissent?

The part I bolded in essence substantiates why my only qualm in this matter (the sexual issue) arises on the issue of child rearing and development. Let sexuals have every other benefit available out there. But on this issue... I don't believe we would ever get the right data pool to assess whether or not the detrimental effects to children posed in this environment are greater than normal (again, not that normal homes provide the perfect setting either)...

The only such pool that exists, exists in Sweden.... and not too many sexual couples there have taken advantage of that provision either. Not that it matters though, people here don't find the Swedes to be of much relevance.

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, if it wasn't about sex, what exactly would form the distinction between heterosexual and sexual? God. Damn.

[Phenomanul]

so you are indifferent yourself. you are simply justifying the OP's position.

Got it.

hmmm... not really... I've really only argued that:

1) The data set from Sweden and the Netherlands is relevant, even when most of the other data seemed skewed. My first post essentially backed B2B's observation on its incompatibility for cross-reference against policy making in the US...

2) Christians don't hate sexuals (the actions of a few don't define our doctrine)

3) I can vote as I see fit...

4) sexuals are also granted the right to vote...

5) sexual promiscuity initially stood out... followed by the staggering disproportion of Dutch and Swede sexuals electing not to get married.

6) And throughout I've mentioned that I'm fine with letting the government grant them all of the provisions extended to heterosexual marriages.

[FromWayDowntown]

The part I bolded in essence substantiates why my only qualm in this matter arises on the issue of child rearing and development. Let sexuals have every other benefit out there. But on this issue... I don't believe we would ever get the right data pool to assess whether or not detrimental effects to children are posed in this environment beyond the normal (again, not that normal homes provide the perfect setting either)...

Certainly you're not suggesting that heterosexual marriages immunize their participants from being crappy, abusive, neglectful, or unavailable parents. I mean, I can't see a conclusive case that a child reared by a sexual couple that must take affirmative steps to become parents of that child is in a manifestly worse cir stance than a child who is born to a heterosexual couple (married or not) that doesn't give a whit about being parents or the responsibilities it brings.

The language of mine that you bolded has everything to do with the genetic problems that are scientifically likely to occur in products of incest. For rather obvious reasons, that concern is inapplicable to same sex couples who wish to marry.