Marriage

[warpus]

I support smoking bans in bars and clubs because of the dangers of second-hand smoke.

There is no such thing as second-hand homosexuality.

 

[MobBoss]

Which states were those?

At any rate, I don't think it right for 8 people to stop 2 people marrying, it should be the descion of those 2.

Well, in this case its more like 9.7 people deciding whats right for the whole 10.

As far as which states, you can google it and find them. Two that come to mind directly are Texas and Oregon...and I think Utah also, but am not so sure on that one.

I seem to recall that 6 to 8 more have it on the ballot for this November.

 

[MobBoss]

I support smoking bans in bars and clubs because of the dangers of second-hand smoke.

There is no such thing as second-hand homosexuality.

You have obviously never been in prison.

Btw, going to clubs and bars that have smoking is totally voluntary is it not? Dont like smoke? Dont go.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Well, in this case its more like 9.7 people deciding whats right for the whole 10.

As far as which states, you can google it and find them. Two that come to mind directly are Texas and Oregon...and I think Utah also, but am not so sure on that one.

I seem to recall that 6 to 8 more have it on the ballot for this November.

How is it 9.7 when it's 60-80% of the vote? That translates as 6-8 people against 2.

And seriously, Texas is a bad example to use, believe me that state have somewhat of a reputation outside the US as being full of bible-bashing rednecks!

 

[warpus]

You have obviously never been in prison.

Btw, going to clubs and bars that have smoking is totally voluntary is it not? Dont like smoke? Dont go.

Don't like gay sex?

Don't have gay sex.

 

[Turner]

You dont think a marriage is more condusive to raising kids? I do.

Yeah, because you hear of homosexual parents all the time keeping their kids in cages, or killing them from abuse. Or outright abuse. That Mother-Father dynamic really works!

Ok, but you did mention it along with legalizing SSM. If both are required to see a benefit from SSM, I dont think that will happen for a very, very long time.

Unfortunately, you're right. But homosexuals deserve the same treatment has hetero's do. There's even a constitutional amendment stating that all people should be treated equally.

You can extend this argument as far as you like with whatever action you like. You would never take illegal drugs would you? However, you would discourage someone via the law from doing something to their own bodies with illegal drugs. We impose our morals on one another by our laws. We dictate those laws as a society. To say that its a stigma to impose ones morals on another flys in the face of the fact that we do exactly that on a wide variety of issues.

What I would or would not do has no bearing on whether or not I would council somone on what they do. Be it abortion, illegal drugs, or having another beer. There are six people on this planet that I impose rules on, and the only reason it happens is because it's my job to do so. You may impose your beliefs on others, but I live and let live, regardless of what it is. And I don't impose my will and my morals on people around me, let alone people I don't know and will never meet.

 

[puglover]

By the way, for anyone using the "homosexuality and health" argument, here are the official government statistics.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

It would appear that homosexuality is an unhealthy practice, but even if it was, it wouldn't be enough to motivate me to vote against it. When I can vote, I'll abstain from the polls on that issue.

 

[MobBoss]

And seriously, Texas is a bad example to use, believe me that state have somewhat of a reputation outside the US as being full of bible-bashing rednecks!

That is a rather bigoted comment. I daresay, any rep Texas has outside the US is genuinely based upon 1 man. Hardly an indicator of the entire state.

Why, the Dixie Chicks are from Texas arent they?

 

[puglover]

And seriously, Texas is a bad example to use, believe me that state have somewhat of a reputation outside the US as being full of bible-bashing rednecks!

Right. And all Californians are rich, and all Kansans are farmers.

 

[ComradeDavo]

That is a rather bigoted comment. I daresay, any rep Texas has outside the US is genuinely based upon 1 man. Hardly an indicator of the entire state.

Why, the Dixie Chicks are from Texas arent they?

Call it a bigoted comment if you want, i'm just reffering to a common sterotype, i'm sure the Europeans on this forum will agree. I don't mean it in a nasty way, it's just that Texas is probably the worst example ever to use when talking about %'s in realation to peoples views of homosexuals

 

[IglooDame]

Where I live they recently passed a statewide law banning smoking from privately owned bars and taverns. It basically took away the right for an owner to decide if he wanted his establishment to be smoking or non-smoking.

The measure passed overwhelmingly in this very liberal state. The liberals (and a good number of conservatives that simply didnt like smoking) voted their "morals" in regards to smoking upon the owners of such establishments and their property.

If the majority deems it moral to dictate what you can or cannot do with your own property, then of course we can do it where other issues are concerned as well.

And where I live, they (very narrowly) defeated that same bill. Neither neoliberals nor conservatives have a monopoly on intrusive government, they just go about justifying it differently.

Anyway, you missed my question: at what point do you oppose imposing morals on others via the law?

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, because you hear of homosexual parents all the time keeping their kids in cages, or killing them from abuse. Or outright abuse. That Mother-Father dynamic really works!

Once more you wish to blame all for the criminal acts of a few? As spongebob says "good luck with that". Studies have proven time and time again that a good family with both parents of opposite sex as role models tend to raise kids with the least developmental problems.

There's even a constitutional amendment stating that all people should be treated equally.

In my opinion all people are being treated equally under the law. If you think otherwise, by all means take it all the way up to the SCOTUS and get it fixed.

You may impose your beliefs on others

I have no more authority than you do to impose my beliefs on others. I get a vote and you get a vote. Thats it. We are equal, nothing more, nothing less. I, like you, have to obey the laws that we as a society enact. I am not "imposing" my beliefs on no one, any more than you are.

And I don't impose my will and my morals on people around me, let alone people I don't know and will never meet.

Discussing my opinion is a far cry from "imposing my will and morals on the people around me".

 

[MobBoss]

Call it a bigoted comment if you want, i'm just reffering to a common sterotype, i'm sure the Europeans on this forum will agree. I don't mean it in a nasty way, it's just that Texas is probably the worst example ever to use when talking about %'s in realation to peoples views of homosexuals

Thats why I put Oregon in there as well. Or did that just blow by you?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Thats why I put Oregon in there as well. Or did that just blow by you?

Of course I noticed it, I was just pointing out that Texas was a bad example.

Plus wiki tells me ''Oregonians voted 57% to 43% to pass Ballot Measure 36, a constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman''

So I mean thats like 6 people telling 4 people they can't marry. Is that really right? Should 57% have the ability to tell the other 43% what to do?

 

[Turner]

In my opinion all people are being treated equally under the law. If you think otherwise, by all means take it all the way up to the SCOTUS and get it fixed.

Indeed they are. That's why homosexuals can marry. Oh, wait, they can't.

I have no more authority than you do to impose my beliefs on others. I get a vote and you get a vote. Thats it. We are equal, nothing more, nothing less. I, like you, have to obey the laws that we as a society enact. I am not "imposing" my beliefs on no one, any more than you are.

How fair is it to have a minority that doesn't have the same rules as you do? If you're not helping them get the same rights, then you're opposing it. In other words, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Once more you wish to blame all for the criminal acts of a few? As spongebob says "good luck with that". Studies have proven time and time again that a good family with both parents of opposite sex as role models tend to raise kids with the least developmental problems.

Studies may show that children from a mother-father dynamic have kids with the least developmental problems, but time and time again I see in the news children being abused by a mother-father dynamic, or a mother-boyfriend/father-girlfriend dynamic. I see childing dying because of that dynamic. I don't recall hearing of a child with same-sex parents having that problem. Now, I'm not saying that SSP's are defacto better, but I don't hear about them killing or abusing their kids like I do with the traditional mother-father dynamic. Statistically, with about 10% of the population being homosexual, I should hear about 10% of the abused/killed children coming from SSPs. But like I said, I can't recall one.

 

[toh6wy]

I chose the last choice, but more as a protest against omitting the reasonable solution.

Get rid of marriage as a legal institution. No one is married legally. Offer civil unions to every couple. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious institution and carries no legal weight outside of religion.

Very reasonable. This sounds the best to me, too.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Technically, the law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. The are free to marry, just like heterosexuals. They are even free to enter SSMs, but they won't receive the same privileges as in OSMs. The law doesn't discriminate against individuals but against marriages. But like I said, SSMs are new enough as an idea that they shouldn't be the default position. All this leads me to conclude that ending marriage as a legal definition and creating civil unions between any 2 or more people who can call it a marriage or not, as they choose, is really the only sensible option.

 

[toh6wy]

Technically, the law doesn't discriminate against homosexuals. The are free to marry, just like heterosexuals. They are even free to enter SSMs, but they won't receive the same privileges as in OSMs. The law doesn't discriminate against individuals but against marriages.

Obviously, same-sex marriages are not limited to people attracted to the same sex -- but how often would two straight men or women marry each other? Banning marriage between people of the same sex is basically banning marriages for gay couples -- and I find that discriminatory.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Obviously, same-sex marriages are not limited to people attracted to the same sex -- but how often would two straight men or women marry each other? Banning marriage between people of the same sex is basically banning marriages for gay couples -- and I find that discriminatory.

I don't see not extending recognition to be the same as banning marriage for gay couples - they can marry, they just don't get tax breaks. It is discriminatory of one marriage (with a lot of history on its side) against another (new form). In practice homosexuals are being discriminated against but according to the letter of the law they are not. Like I said, this thread has basically led me to conclude that "civil unions for all" is the only fair and realistic way to go.

 

[toh6wy]

I don't see not extending recognition to be the same as banning marriage for gay couples - they can marry, they just don't get tax breaks. It is discriminatory of one marriage (with a lot of history on its side) against another (new form). In practice homosexuals are being discriminated against but according to the letter of the law they are not. Like I said, this thread has basically led me to conclude that "civil unions for all" is the only fair and realistic way to go.

I can't say I know much about the tax breaks thing. I was under the impression that same-sex marriages are not allowed in any US state except Massachusetts.

And I agree with your civil union idea. That seems fair.