Equal marriage rights passed in NY

[Metsfanmax]

None of these things will happen. I have yet to hear a gay rights activist call for the elimination of marriage licenses or the elimination of tax breaks for those that are married.

...

On a practical basis, good for New York.

This was a step in the right direction, though. Gay rights activists didn't stress deregulating marriage because that's the ultimate third rail. Now that they have achieved equality in the eyes of the law, it might be possible in the future to work on changing how we see marriage. This was as much a social victory as it was a political victory, after all.

[PLAYER57832]

Details....please. All men are created equal, regardless of race. A man is a man, regardless of race.

or you going to go on about how one might weigh 140 pounds and one might weight 156 pounds?

No, I'm referring to the fact that they are quite obviously different in a variety of inherent ways. For starters, white skin color arises from a genetic mutation compared to brown skin color; white and black people have different DNA.

Biologically, this is not true.

Does Race Exist?
If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no.

and

Our answers rest on several generalizations about race and genetics. Some groups do differ genetically from others, but how groups are divided depends on which genes are examined; simplistically put, you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic. Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations. In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.

(from a Scientific American article link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... race-exist

Generally speaking, though not always, their ancestors hail from entirely different parts of the world and have very different customs, traditions and languages.

different customs and traditions, sure.. but those are passed on and change.

There is even evidence of a disparity in IQ scores on average between the two groups, and the consensus seems to be that genetic differences probably play some role in that.

Uh.. no. This is an old idea long since disproven. Education, culture do impact the way IQ shows up on a test, but that is independent of any genetic basis.

And of course people of African descent are simply biologically more prepared to be faster runners, for example.

Not sure why this statement shocks me more than the last, but again, absolutely not true! What IS true is that some individual people.. families, tribes, etc do seem to have better runners... or whatever. Its as much random variation as anything else. Also, again, its culture. There are some studied differences. The Serpa, for example do seem to be better able to withstand higher altitudes. However, they also live there from birth. When these people migrate away from those high altitude regions, the distinction is far less clear. In reality, the connection is no greater than saying that Michael Jordan's relations are more likely to be good at basketball (or sports in general) than Mickey Rooney's relatives.

So no, there is in general a difference between a black man and a white man. We may hold that all men should be treated equally under the law (and I agree with this), but this does not mean we should attempt to whitewash the differences between races and cultures; instead, we should celebrate them as they allow us access to ways of thinking and perspectives that we perhaps do not always access.

I agree about the cultures. Because of your clarification, I take this as ignorance and not racism, but the first part of your statement shows you really need to educate yourself a bit more.

[Metsfanmax]

No, I'm referring to the fact that they are quite obviously different in a variety of inherent ways. For starters, white skin color arises from a genetic mutation compared to brown skin color; white and black people have different DNA.

Biologically, this is not true.

I said that white skin color is the result of a genetic mutation that occurred some time ago from an originally darker-skinned human race. This is by far the leading theory in the scientific community -- that is, that the human race was dark skinned until roughly 100,000 years ago. For example, see this article and some of the references therein:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... 3.full.pdf

Besides, it should be fairly obvious that white and black people have to be genetically different if they present a different biological trait (that is, skin color).

different customs and traditions, sure.. but those are passed on and change.

They didn't change enough that one could reasonably say now that black people and white people come from similar cultural backgrounds on the whole. If that were true, we wouldn't see entire sections of cities that are statistically dominated by one group or the other.

Uh.. no. This is an old idea long since disproven. Education, culture do impact the way IQ shows up on a test, but that is independent of any genetic basis.

Old idea, but not disproven. There is evidence still being presented now that indicates some component explaining IQ differences. See, for example, this article from 2005:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

The fact that there's a debate about whether genetics plays a role does not mean that the genetics proponents are wrong. It means they could be right and that more studies should be done if we're interested in the answer. I know that you are not a scientist, but I am and I assure you that "disproven" is a very strong word to use. You are not using it correctly.

:shock: Not sure why this statement shocks me more than the last, but again, absolutely not true! What IS true is that some individual people.. families, tribes, etc do seem to have better runners... or whatever. Its as much random variation as anything else.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... Ll8iSIwcJw
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php
http://jap.physiology.org/content/75/4/1822.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3303002277

Do your research before making such assertions. African runners are simply biologically better runners. Not all black people are of African descent, but many or most Africans are black and they do have a significant advantage over Caucasians in running ability (Western Africans are a bit better at sprinting, Eastern/Southern Africans seem to be better at long-distance running).

Also, again, its culture. There are some studied differences. The Serpa, for example do seem to be better able to withstand higher altitudes. However, they also live there from birth. When these people migrate away from those high altitude regions, the distinction is far less clear.

This seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, though I think you know better. The high altitude environment engendered biological changes in the tribe which was passed down over time; this evolution was necessary to adapt to their low-oxygen environment. These biological changes in favor of, say, better oxygen capacity don't disappear when someone goes to live in a low altitude region. The Kalenjin tribe people from Kenya still dominate races even when they're doing them on sea level.

...the first part of your statement shows you really need to educate yourself a bit more.

This is a totally ludicrous statement unless you're willing to provide sources for your outrageous claims (I say outrageous because of your very strong statements, that most reasonable scientists wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole).

[thegreekdog]

None of these things will happen. I have yet to hear a gay rights activist call for the elimination of marriage licenses or the elimination of tax breaks for those that are married.

...

On a practical basis, good for New York.

This was a step in the right direction, though. Gay rights activists didn't stress deregulating marriage because that's the ultimate third rail. Now that they have achieved equality in the eyes of the law, it might be possible in the future to work on changing how we see marriage. This was as much a social victory as it was a political victory, after all.

This is why I differentiated between the theoretical and the practical. It is not practical for homosexuals to try for deregulation (for lack of a better term) of marriage because I'm fairly sure most people wouldn't get all excited about deregulation. I don't blame homosexual marriage supporters for using this avenue; I just wish they would have used this avenue.

[Phatscotty]

Nothing is stopping gay people from loving each other, being together, living in peace, spending their whole life together. If they need a certificate to prove their love to each other, they can do that too.

The problem is that they are trying to redefine what a marriage is, and trying to get the benefits that have been built in to encourage people to reproduce.

[PLAYER57832]

Nothing is stopping gay people from loving each other, being together, living in peace, spending their whole life together. If they need a certificate to prove their love to each other, they can do that too.

They don't need a certificate to prove they love each other. They do need a certificate or an expensive document drawn up by an attorney to allow them the right to just visit, never mind have a say in the care of their loved one in a hospital, to gain custody of children if their loved one passes away, etc. They also have to go through some hoops to avoid paying things like estate taxes which married couples don't have to pay automatically.

The problem is that they are trying to redefine what a marriage is, and trying to get the benefits that have been built in to encourage people to reproduce.

No, in fact it is Christians who have narrowly defined marriage. I am Christian, but go anywhere else and other types of marriages are recognized. Also, you have to be careful about that "reproduce" part. What about couples who cannot have children? In the past a man could quite legally divorce his wife if she proved "barren" (never mind that we now even know its more often the man who is "the cause").

There is only one reason to ban this type of union recognition. It would be if it were to cause society true harm. Neither you nor anyone else has done that. If the definition changes, so what? Children used to be property. The definition changed. Now if you abuse your child, your child is taken away. I don't believe that is a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, but this "witch hunt" mentality that they are "undermining the moral fabric of america" is just garbage. So is the silly rules that allow only some people to marry, but not others. (of age)

[Phatscotty]

Nothing is stopping gay people from loving each other, being together, living in peace, spending their whole life together. If they need a certificate to prove their love to each other, they can do that too.

They don't need a certificate to prove they love each other. They do need a certificate or an expensive document drawn up by an attorney to allow them the right to just visit, never mind have a say in the care of their loved one in a hospital, to gain custody of children if their loved one passes away, etc. They also have to go through some hoops to avoid paying things like estate taxes which married couples don't have to pay automatically.

The problem is that they are trying to redefine what a marriage is, and trying to get the benefits that have been built in to encourage people to reproduce.

No, in fact it is Christians who have narrowly defined marriage. I am Christian, but go anywhere else and other types of marriages are recognized. Also, you have to be careful about that "reproduce" part. What about couples who cannot have children? In the past a man could quite legally divorce his wife if she proved "barren" (never mind that we now even know its more often the man who is "the cause").

There is only one reason to ban this type of union recognition. It would be if it were to cause society true harm. Neither you nor anyone else has done that. If the definition changes, so what? Children used to be property. The definition changed. Now if you abuse your child, your child is taken away. I don't believe that is a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree with homosexuality, but this "witch hunt" mentality that they are "undermining the moral fabric of america" is just garbage. So is the silly rules that allow only some people to marry, but not others. (of age)

Most married people reproduce. the fact that very few do not in no way prevents me from generalizing the overall institution of marriage.

Many other places recognize marriage indeed. Hardly any recognize homosexual marriage.

You don't have to care about the definition of marriage, but the overwhelming majority do care and that's where it stands now.

Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

[PLAYER57832]

Most married people reproduce. the fact that very few do not in no way prevents me from generalizing the overall institution of marriage.

Many other places recognize marriage indeed. Hardly any recognize homosexual marriage.

You don't have to care about the definition of marriage, but the overwhelming majority do care and that's where it stands now.

Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

And how does ANY of the above show that this law is harmful or even just should not happen?

[Phatscotty]

Most married people reproduce. the fact that very few do not in no way prevents me from generalizing the overall institution of marriage.

Many other places recognize marriage indeed. Hardly any recognize homosexual marriage.

You don't have to care about the definition of marriage, but the overwhelming majority do care and that's where it stands now.

Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

And how does ANY of the above show that this law is harmful or even just should not happen?

I'm not saying it's harmful or that it should not happen.

I am just saying that marriage is an institution for man and woman for a lot of reasons.

[PLAYER57832]

No, I'm referring to the fact that they are quite obviously different in a variety of inherent ways. For starters, white skin color arises from a genetic mutation compared to brown skin color; white and black people have different DNA.

Biologically, this is not true.

I said that white skin color is the result of a genetic mutation that occurred some time ago from an originally darker-skinned human race. This is by far the leading theory in the scientific community -- that is, that the human race was dark skinned until roughly 100,000 years ago. For example, see this article and some of the references therein:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... 3.full.pdf

Besides, it should be fairly obvious that white and black people have to be genetically different if they present a different biological trait (that is, skin color).

LOL Did skin color change over time due to mutation? Of course! There was one original eye color, hair color, skin color, height, etc, etc etc. However, you show your misunderstanding in your summary. See I have a "different DNA" from my brother, my kids even. To talk about race being "real", you have to show more variation between groups than you see within AND you have to show a real demarcation of traits. Folks used to believe these existed, but newer research shows they do not.

]different customs and traditions, sure.. but those are passed on and change.

They didn't change enough that one could reasonably say now that black people and white people come from similar cultural backgrounds on the whole. If that were true, we wouldn't see entire sections of cities that are statistically dominated by one group or the other.

PLEASE educate yourself.. beyond the mathematics that you have previously indicate made for most of education !

(and try getting into statistics and sampling, within math!)
Cultures change very quickly. Just look at the change in one generation of immigrants. Greekdog, myself are each first generation americans (though I can also trace my ancestry back to the beginnings of the country on one side). You see groups in set sections partially because of historic racism. I mean, only 40 years ago there were STILL many areas where blacks, others "of color" couldn't go. Its also because culture is important. It is not tied to genetics, except for the corollary that genetics follow families and families tend to be of a culture.. at least for a time.

Uh.. no. This is an old idea long since disproven. Education, culture do impact the way IQ shows up on a test, but that is independent of any genetic basis.

Old idea, but not disproven. There is evidence still being presented now that indicates some component explaining IQ differences. See, for example, this article from 2005:

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

Then again, you might try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ARac ... Archive_19
I rarely use wikki for stuff like this, except as a starting point to other references, but this one gives a pretty decent rundown of what was wrong with the study and the way it was presented. Since you seem to want to know about science, note that more often times errors are found in interpretations and analysis than in data collection. That, and the basic way some studies are designed. This is true here.

The biggest problem is just determining what IQ really is or means. I have gotten into this a fair amount due to issues with my son, but I won't bore you since its not related to race. Just remember that IQ measures were begun by white males in a heavily white male dominated society. Attempts to improve have been made, and newer tests are no longer nearly as biased as the old ones, but the question of relevance and significance still very much remains.

One key point is that IQ has little to do with a person's success.

The fact that there's a debate about whether genetics plays a role does not mean that the genetics proponents are wrong. It means they could be right and that more studies should be done if we're interested in the answer. I know that you are not a scientist, but I am and I assure you that "disproven" is a very strong word to use. You are not using it correctly.

First, nice try at changing the subject. I never denied that genetics were tied to intelligence. I said RACE was not tied to intelligence.

and... LOL I am not a scientist? Try again, I AM a scientist... a published one, at that. I am not currently employed in the field, but you don't just stop thinking like a scientist.

The fact is that many studies have shown there is no real significant link. I have to look more at this particular study, but from the many critiques I saw, it is anything but "proof". Many studies have very much disproven old ideas that , for example, blacks had lower IQs than whites. In most cases, they were looking at children who did not have anything close to equal environments. Some studies looked at inner city kids, but it turned out that the black kids had higher lead levels in their blood. Or, they might be looking at a question that asked if a spoon or saucer went with a cup... to kids who never saw cups with saucers!

Also, this is a slightly different case than many other types of science. Because we know that there is a "self -fulfilling prophesy" element involved, it is critically important not to let a "mere question" (which can be said to exist in just about any question) get translated into "the issue is open".

Fact is, the whole idea is pretty moot any longer, because the whole idea of race is under fire AND people are intermarrying more and more (though people do tend to stay more with those of their own cultural background).

:shock: Not sure why this statement shocks me more than the last, but again, absolutely not true! What IS true is that some individual people.. families, tribes, etc do seem to have better runners... or whatever. Its as much random variation as anything else.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... Ll8iSIwcJw
http://run-down.com/guests/je_black_athletes_p2.php
http://jap.physiology.org/content/75/4/1822.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3303002277

Do your research before making such assertions. African runners are simply biologically better runners. Not all black people are of African descent, but many or most Africans are black and they do have a significant advantage over Caucasians in running ability (Western Africans are a bit better at sprinting, Eastern/Southern Africans seem to be better at long-distance running).

This is not proof that running (or anything else) is tied to race.

Now, what you DO see is traits being passed down within families. You also see cultures that emphasize running over other things, for various reasons. This is the part you are misunderstanding in your attempt to claim that "blacks make better runners". Now, what you DO see is traits being passed down within families. This is the part you are misunderstanding in your attempt to claim that "blacks make better runners".

Its also wrong. There are families of Native Americans, south Americans, etc that are good runners. Its just that culturally, Kenyans have more emphasis on it right now. Take a look at Olympic standings. Sure, you see Kenyans, but you see people from other cultures making good showings as well. In fact, the greatest runners of all time were apparently some South American messangers.

Its also wrong. There are families of Native Americans, south Americans, etc that are good runners. Its just that culturally, Kenyans have more emphasis on it right now. Take a look at Olympic standings. Sure, you see Kenyans, but you see people from other cultures making good showings as well

Also, again, its culture. There are some studied differences. The Serpa, for example do seem to be better able to withstand higher altitudes. However, they also live there from birth. When these people migrate away from those high altitude regions, the distinction is far less clear.

This seems to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of biology, though I think you know better. The high altitude environment engendered biological changes in the tribe which was passed down over time; this evolution was necessary to adapt to their low-oxygen environment. These biological changes in favor of, say, better oxygen capacity don't disappear when someone goes to live in a low altitude region. The Kalenjin tribe people from Kenya still dominate races even when they're doing them on sea level.

NOPE.. because for the above to be true, you would see the distinction retained when the people migrate away from these high climates.

.

the first part of your statement shows you really need to educate yourself a bit more.

This is a totally ludicrous statement unless you're willing to provide sources for your outrageous claims (I say outrageous because of your very strong statements, that most reasonable scientists wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole).

LOL... nice try, but links provided. I gotta go see fireworks now. Anyway, this is a thread about marriage. If you want to get into the race bit further, maybe in another thread?

[Metsfanmax]

I said nothing about race. I said that a black person, that is a person whose skin is brown or dark in color, is statistically quite different from a white person, a person whose skin is pale in color, because by and large those two groups came from different geographical regions and actually evolved differently in response to their surroundings. You injected the concept of race into this and I'm not sure why; I was only making the point that people with brown skin are typically biologically different from people with pale skin. The fact that they do have dark skin comes from exactly the same reason why they are distinct from others who have pale skin -- their geographical surroundings made such dark skin a favored trait. I don't know why this should have to be a controversial point.

This is very relevant to the marriage issue. Different groups of people who come from different areas are different, there's no question about it. The great thing about our democracy is that we treat them the same anyway. This should extend to sexual preference, not just to skin color.

Since you haven't even bothered to read what I said, and you're apparently laughing at me for an argument I didn't make, I'm done arguing with you.

[Phatscotty]

I said nothing about race. I said that a black person, that is a person whose skin is brown or dark in color, is statistically quite different from a white person, a person whose skin is pale in color, because by and large those two groups came from different geographical regions and actually evolved differently in response to their surroundings. You injected the concept of race into this and I'm not sure why; I was only making the point that people with brown skin are typically biologically different from people with pale skin. The fact that they do have dark skin comes from exactly the same reason why they are distinct from others who have pale skin -- their geographical surroundings made such dark skin a favored trait. I don't know why this should have to be a controversial point.

This is very relevant to the marriage issue. Different groups of people who come from different areas are different, there's no question about it. The great thing about our democracy is that we treat them the same anyway. This should extend to sexual preference, not just to skin color.

Since you haven't even bothered to read what I said, and you're apparently laughing at me for an argument I didn't make, I'm done arguing with you.

Anatomically, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Sure the skin color can be different, but that is just appearance.

[Metsfanmax]

Anatomically, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Sure the skin color can be different, but that is just appearance.

The skin color simply reflects more subtle differences. Anatomically, a man descended from ancestors living in Kenya is actually different from a man descended from ancestors in Northern Europe. In some cases these differences are subtle, and in some other cases there is debate as to whether they even exist (see above), but the differences do exist. The only difference with the skin color trait is that it is easier to see.

[daddy1gringo]

No, in fact it is Christians who have narrowly defined marriage. I am Christian, but go anywhere else and other types of marriages are recognized...

OK, I've been avoiding posting in this thread, but that statement is just so ridiculous I have to say something. In the last 20 to 40 years, western European countries have been recognizing homosexual marriage. That's a very small portion of the world, and an infinitesimally small portion of human history. On the contrary, "go anywhere else", any society, throughout history, and to the remotest corners of the world, and the basic unit of society is a union between a man and a woman. They differ about various details: how you get in and out of it, occasionally how many wives (or even more rarely, how many husbands) one may have, but the bond is between a man and a woman. A few cultures historically have developed a tolerance of homosexuality at certain points in their history, but even in the history of those cultures, it represents a small portion of the time.

Now you could argue that it is just because of ignorance and prejudice, you could argue that this new phenomenon, of declaring homosexuality an inherent part of who a person is, and homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones, is a positive one, and I would still disagree with you, but that is a whole different issue. Your assertion here is absolutely ridiculous. Measures like the one about which this thread is made are unquestionably changing the definition of marriage as it has been throughout human society and history.

[Phatscotty]

Anatomically, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Sure the skin color can be different, but that is just appearance.

The skin color simply reflects more subtle differences. Anatomically, a man descended from ancestors living in Kenya is actually different from a man descended from ancestors in Northern Europe. In some cases these differences are subtle, and in some other cases there is debate as to whether they even exist (see above), but the differences do exist. The only difference with the skin color trait is that it is easier to see.

a man is a man, a woman is a woman. You are splitting hairs

The original statement is a white man and a black man are both men, yet there are immense differences between a man and a woman.

[Iliad]

Most married people reproduce. the fact that very few do not in no way prevents me from generalizing the overall institution of marriage.

Many other places recognize marriage indeed. Hardly any recognize homosexual marriage.

You don't have to care about the definition of marriage, but the overwhelming majority do care and that's where it stands now.

Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

And how does ANY of the above show that this law is harmful or even just should not happen?

I'm not saying it's harmful or that it should not happen.

I am just saying that marriage is an institution for man and woman for a lot of reasons.

Those better be some damn good reasons to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. Simply repeating but that's the way it's always been is usually the last resort.

Also I love that you don't actually provide any reasons at all, knowing that just like your "marriage is only an incentive to create kids" argument, they will get torn apart. Then you will whine and cry, play the victim card and leave in a huff.

[Metsfanmax]

a man is a man, a woman is a woman. You are splitting hairs

The original statement is a white man and a black man are both men, yet there are immense differences between a man and a woman.

I am absolutely not splitting hairs. There are immense differences between men with African heritage and men with European heritage (they are more subtle, but the differences are still there). Yet we give them equal standing under the law when it comes to marriage, because we recognize that those biological differences are immaterial to the question of whether they can love another person and raise a family together. The same holds for straight men and homosexual men, who are obviously different in some way but ought to be treated the same way under the law.

[BigBallinStalin]

Can we all just walk away from this Phatsco threads--rest assured that Phatscotty is most likely a troll or frequently acts like an idiot?

Why bother?

[daddy1gringo]

Anatomically, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Sure the skin color can be different, but that is just appearance.

The skin color simply reflects more subtle differences. Anatomically, a man descended from ancestors living in Kenya is actually different from a man descended from ancestors in Northern Europe. In some cases these differences are subtle, and in some other cases there is debate as to whether they even exist (see above), but the differences do exist. The only difference with the skin color trait is that it is easier to see.

Well look, I think the point of all this is that they are different as regards to marriage. Anybody who you or I respect enough to have a discussion with would agree the whatever the genetic differences between a black man and a white man, they do not make a difference as far as whether there is something abnormal or wrong with a woman marrying them.

Some on this forum might say that it is bigotry of the same order to believe that the differences between a man and a woman do make a difference as to whether it is abnormal or wrong for a woman to marry them. However that is a point on which there can be honest disagreement and debate between respectable people. I think that was the point of the whole "race" thing in this thread.

[Symmetry]

David Remnick- It Get's Better

I think he provides one of the best summaries I've seen about the struggle:

The struggle for marriage equality doesn’t require that everyone subscribe to a new norm; cynicism about marriage is as old as the institution itself, and skeptics, both gay and straight, will never be in short supply... The struggle for marriage equality is about more than the definition of marriage; it’s about the definition of justice.

[PLAYER57832]

Most married people reproduce. the fact that very few do not in no way prevents me from generalizing the overall institution of marriage.

Many other places recognize marriage indeed. Hardly any recognize homosexual marriage.

You don't have to care about the definition of marriage, but the overwhelming majority do care and that's where it stands now.

Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

And how does ANY of the above show that this law is harmful or even just should not happen?

I'm not saying it's harmful or that it should not happen.

I am just saying that marriage is an institution for man and woman for a lot of reasons.

Give us the reasons, then.

[Symmetry]

Most married people reproduce. the fact that very few do not in no way prevents me from generalizing the overall institution of marriage.

Many other places recognize marriage indeed. Hardly any recognize homosexual marriage.

You don't have to care about the definition of marriage, but the overwhelming majority do care and that's where it stands now.

Every person can marry someone of the opposite sex.

And how does ANY of the above show that this law is harmful or even just should not happen?

I'm not saying it's harmful or that it should not happen.

I am just saying that marriage is an institution for man and woman for a lot of reasons.

Give us the reasons, then.

BBS is correct- you won't get anymore out of him than he's already stated. You can argue against him, but you won't convince him.

I get a degree of satisfaction sometimes out of providing concrete proof that people whose opinions I disagree with are wrong. I also get a bit of satisfaction out of watching them grasp for new reasons to justify their opinions. After a while I feel guilty. Liberal that I am, I'm opposed to torture. And it feels like torturing someone who doesn't know the answer until they just give up and say whatever I want them to say, or pass out.

Scotty's basic opinion is that a) homosexuality is wrong, and b) that he is not homophobic for thinking so. An additional thing is that he genuinely seems to feel that he's part the last bastion, beset on all sides by shadowy agendas he doesn't agree with.

He can't be persuaded, and his reasons are so obvious to him that they require no explanation. They simply exist, and people who ask for an explanation are attacking him.

The backfire effect

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

I kind of ran into this on another thread about state sponsored sterilisation, but yeah- after a certain point you kind of realise that the belief is too deeply held to shift by argument. Cognitive Dissonance is a good one to read up on too.

It's not so much that Scotty is wrong- that's been made pretty clear, but that responding to him will just make him double down on his core dogma out of a feeling of being attacked.

[patrickaa317]

Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

[Symmetry]

Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

Wow. I mean I sort of want to applaud you for being right wing, but still getting on board with gay marriage at least tentatively, but that opening the door to "gay incestual marriage" line is just amazing.

I'm going to settle with asking you if you actually understood all of the words you typed, starting with "incestual".

Do you actually know what "incestual" means? You did kind of mention it especially as a point of concern.

[patrickaa317]

Marriage isn't a right. The term "right" has been changed over the years.

Free speech, arms bearing, and trial by jury are examples of rights.

Marriage is a contract between two individuals to allows certain benefits to them. Society has defined what is acceptable and what isn't. I personally do not agree with gay marriage but if a state approves it through their legal method, that is their choice. I do think this opens the door to redefining marriage to also include polygamy and incestual marriage (especially gay incestual marriage where reproductional issues are not of concern) but again, i am in favor of the states deciding this by whatever the legal method would be in that state (citizens voting, court rulings, amendments, etc).

Wow. I mean I sort of want to applaud you for being right wing, but still getting on board with gay marriage at least tentatively, but that opening the door to "gay incestual marriage" line is just amazing.

I'm going to settle with asking you if you actually understood all of the words you typed, starting with "incestual".

Do you actually know what "incestual" means?

What difference does it make being right wing or left wing. Everything in this country seems to be that if you aren't on our side you must be on the other side. I am fairly conservative but just because I'm pretty conservative does not mean I agree with all other conservatives on every issue. Just like one liberal doesn't agree with all other liberals on everything.

And for the record, I am not on board with gay marriage. I am on board with states making the decision.

And of course I know what incestual means. I'm not saying it will definitely lead to it but it could open the door. I'm not sure why it would be ok for two men in love to marry but if two male second cousins were in love you would not allow them to marry too. I understand the reproductional concerns if it is a male and a female but that concern is no longer valid when you are of the same sex.

Let me ask you this. Why do you support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love but are not willing to support two individuals of the same gender to get married if they are in love and are related? I don't want a canned answer like "that's just gross". I could provide that answer myself but I personally do not agree with gay marriage to begin with. If people want to jump out and call me ignorant for asking that question, have at it as that seems to be how these threads end up going anyway. If you don't agree with a viewpoint and challenge it, you just get called ignorant.