The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

She's right. A slow burning insidious plot is a lot more effective. Then its about knowing that the plot has worked and that you have infiltrated enough peoples mindsets before you enter endgame. In terms of redefining marriage, I think they've timed it well.

Congratulations at attempting to make gay rights sound like a Bond villain's plot. What is so 'insidious' about it besides your vague assertions that it will negatively affect marriage? You claim that it could open the slippery slope to polygamy and the likes even though you could say marriage itself or inter-racial marriage did the exact same thing. This doesn't mean that marriage or interracial marriage should be prevented, does it? Should we label all progressivism as insidious and regress entirely?

Nothing in that article suggested it's insidious. It merely pointed out a long term issue in US politics in terms of the public's view(and belief in instigating the change) of the federal government over the individual states.

lmaopml

As a Catholic, I would definitely support not discriminating towards people who are gay or lesbian insofar as their rights to say who their 'next of kin' is etc. and have legislation that protects them to make that choice in life - if they love somebody they love somebody and that's it, civil partnerships are a legal beast.

I think where children are concerned it may seem clear-cut discrimination if you look at the surface of why people ( and they don't have to be Christian ) see Marriage as set somewhat apart - held in esteem. As it stands, it's one thing when for instance a gay couple are looking for recognition and not to be parodied or discriminated against as far as their shared life is concerned, or by means of taxes etc. and legislation to protect those rights.

However, where the 'family' is concerned, even family law is not perfect in this country - we have a long way to go. Not trying to be mean but men are really discriminated against when they are not married as far as their biological child is concerned ( and perhaps that's just a case of the consequences of said biology ) and even when a marriage breaks up they can find themselves alienated from their child - dead beat dad's don't help of course, but there are dead beat mums too.

However, with this in mind - Introduce the status of children as far as legislation is concerned where a marriage has broken down, and now a new step parent is on the scene of course things get more messy....This is something that is already a massive problem legally speaking for biological parents. Now introduce two mums and two dads after a marriage breakup and the trauma of the whole thing for a child? This I think is one of the major more 'common' reasons why I think that male/female marriage is something that really should be presented and upheld. It's not to undermine another, or say they are 'less' it's very simply to protect the notion of a 'family' in the community we live in, and that committed relationship between two biological parents to their offspring. Idealist? Maybe - but there is an ideal notion there of family and we'd be daft to ignore it.


I don't know if I said that right....but, it's probably the more practical reason I can give other than my Catholic or Christian reasons.

As a Catholic I think it's a sin to have sex before marriage, sex is about love - However, I have done it - I think it's a sin to steal, to hate, to be angry, to use contraception - all of those things - but I try to rely on Christ and I know his mercy and my weaknesses. If we can't share him in charity with the fact that we are all fallen, all in need, I don't know whether there is another approach. I think that has to be the fundamental approach, love, respect, care about others - but always be true.

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

However, with this in mind - Introduce the status of children as far as legislation is concerned where a marriage has broken down, and now a new step parent is on the scene of course things get more messy....This is something that is already a massive problem legally speaking for biological parents. Now introduce two mums and two dads after a marriage breakup and the trauma of the whole thing for a child?

As you say, the introduction of a step parent after a marriage has broken down can be a messy legal problem. But I don't see how allowing same sex marriage would exacerbate this.

If a couple breaks up, and one (or both) being new relationships, how does the gender of the new partners affect things, legally speaking? Whether the new couples are same sex or opposite sex, you still have the same issues around access, and custody, and visiting rights, and so on.

Don't get me wrong. I think it is grossly unfair that there are fathers who should have more access to their children but don't, and that should definitely be remedied. But that's something I think should happen regardless of same sex marriage.

lmaopml wrote: »

This I think is one of the major more 'common' reasons why I think that male/female marriage is something that really should be presented and upheld. It's not to undermine another, or say they are 'less' it's very simply to protect the notion of a 'family' in the community we live in, and that committed relationship between two biological parents to their offspring. Idealist? Maybe - but there is an ideal notion there of family and we'd be daft to ignore it.

Leaving aside any discussion about whether that is or isn't an ideal, we'd also be daft to ignore that there are plenty of families that don't achieve it. Plenty of couples can get married and don't have any children, or don't have any children of their own. Yet no one would say those couples are threatening the concept of family.

Either we apply the ideal to everyone, or we don't apply it all.

lmaopml

NuMarvel wrote: »

As you say, the introduction of a step parent after a marriage has broken down can be a messy legal problem. But I don't see how allowing same sex marriage would exacerbate this.

I think perhaps that you may be pushing the boat out a little before defining what 'marriage' should be upheld as in the first place - why people feel so strongly about it too -

If a couple breaks up, and one (or both) being new relationships, how does the gender of the new partners affect things, legally speaking?

Legally speaking, I think it would be appropriate for the law to allow for the person who was a parent and loved a child, with due regard to their actual parents of course, very messy!!!

Whether the new couples are same sex or opposite sex, you still have the same issues around access, and custody, and visiting rights, and so on.

You have that one way or the other - it makes no difference, but is that a 'reason' for to say 'marriage' is not something that should be regarded and certainly approved as the norm?

Don't get me wrong. I think it is grossly unfair that there are fathers who should have more access to their children but don't, and that should definitely be remedied. But that's something I think should happen regardless of same sex marriage.

What happens when any father sees their child adopted by somebody else? There's the first step and then the second - the first step hasn't even nearly been met. I have two boys, I'm interested in these things because of that, and how society shapes itself because it's what I will pass on to them...

Leaving aside any discussion about whether that is or isn't an ideal, we'd also be daft to ignore that there are plenty of families that don't achieve it. Plenty of couples can get married and don't have any children, or don't have any children of their own. Yet no one would say those couples are threatening the concept of family.

Either we apply the ideal to everyone, or we don't apply it all.

That's like saying it doesn't exist. It does though, it does exist and should be nurtured - and that's why it's important and not merely some kind of 'shape'.

You seem to be implying that it's merely a 'shape' of family life among many - and that one should just regard that as something fleeting. What does marriage mean then?

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

I think perhaps that you may be pushing the boat out a little before defining what 'marriage' should be upheld as in the first place - why people feel so strongly about it too -

Legally speaking, I think it would be appropriate for the law to allow for the person who was a parent and loved a child, with due regard to their actual parents of course, very messy!!!

You have that one way or the other - it makes no difference, but is that a 'reason' for to say 'marriage' is not something that should be regarded and certainly approved as the norm?

What happens when any father sees their child adopted by somebody else? There's the first step and then the second - the first step hasn't even nearly been met. I have two boys, I'm interested in these things because of that, and how society shapes itself because it's what I will pass on to them...

I have to be honest and say I'm not sure what your point is. Your breaking up of my post into individual sentences probably isn't helping. How does allowing same sex marriage make things legally worse when marriages (be they heterosexual or same sex) break down?

lmaopml wrote: »

That's like saying it doesn't exist. It does though, it does exist and should be nurtured - and that's why it's important and not merely some kind of 'shape'.

You seem to be implying that it's merely a 'shape' of family life among many - and that one should just regard that as something fleeting. What does marriage mean then?

But if it's an ideal to be nurtured, then logically only couples who meet the criteria of the ideal should be allowed to marry. Your ideal of family is a committed relationship between two biological parents to their offspring. But that's not a criteria currently applied to heterosexual couples, so why should it apply to same sex couples? It either applies to all or it applies to none.

lmaopml

NuMarvel wrote: »

I have to be honest and say I'm not sure what your point is. Your breaking up of my post into individual sentences probably isn't helping. How does allowing same sex marriage make things legally worse when marriages (be they heterosexual or same sex) break down?

The point is that if one only sees marriage as something that can, may or most likely could 'break down' and that people should have access to it as a temporary thing, than what does it mean?


Where does it leave 'marriage', parents, children in the legal vacuum - or any man and woman who get married to have children and intend to share and give themselves equally to the offspring that 'may' in most cases result in their partnership?

If it's only a fleeting concept; and merely one 'shape' the same as any other that any family can take in society and not a special thing, than why would anybody bother getting 'married'? If it's for 'legal' reasons than there are legal means, that granted need updating..

But if it's an ideal to be nurtured, then logically only couples who meet the criteria of the ideal should be allowed to marry. Your ideal of family is a committed relationship between two biological parents to their offspring. But that's not a criteria currently applied to heterosexual couples, so why should it apply to same sex couples?

You know something, couples will often marry and find out they can't have children - but they 'married' not knowing. There is a difference, it's not hard to work out.

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

The point is that if one only sees marriage as something that can, may or most likely could 'break down' and that people should have access to it as a temporary thing, than what does it mean?

Where does it leave 'marriage', parents, children in the legal vacuum - or any man and woman who get married to have children and intend to share and give themselves equally to the offspring that 'may' in most cases result in their partnership?

If it's only a fleeting concept; and merely one 'shape' the same as any other that any family can take in society and not a special thing, than why would anybody bother getting 'married'? If it's for 'legal' reasons than there are legal means, that granted need updating..

I'm sorry, I'm really not getting your point. Society already accepts that marriages will breakdown and that some of them will be a temporary thing. Ireland accepted that long before anyone even thought of asking about same sex marriage. What does one have to do with the other?

lmaopml wrote: »

You know something, couples will often marry and find out they can't have children - but they 'married' not knowing. There is a difference, it's not hard to work out.

And many couples get married knowing they can't have children. Do you agree that if we used your definition of marriage, then any couple who knows they can't have children together should not be allowed to marry?

lmaopml

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm sorry, I'm really not getting your point. Society already accepts that marriages will breakdown and that some of them will be a temporary thing. Ireland accepted that long before anyone even thought of asking about same sex marriage. What does one have to do with the other?

The idea is NuMarvel, and it may be rather novel, that 'Marriage' is not particularly about just two people but also about the family they have?

And many couples get married knowing they can't have children. Do you agree that if we used your definition of marriage, then any couple who knows they can't have children together should not be allowed to marry?

That is ridiculous, and I think you know it. If a couple who are male and female marry they more often than not believe they might have children - if a couple marry and they don't it doesn't mean that their pledge to each other is any less - in fact, it cements them.

Marriage is not a 'legal' term, it's a life thing, a coupling - it's about children and family - and about the children and their rights 'to' parents - it's not about parents rights over others, or lovers etc. etc.

It's about a child and their right 'to' their parents - and the commitment of a couple can't be just undermined or disregarded as unimportant, because it is not unimportant - it's very important. Take a walk down the path that only saw marriage as not important and see the results and heartbreak - both of children and parents and the legal mess.

The minute you reduce marriage, you reduce the child's right to their parents - not the parents rights - the child. The idea of being brought up in a stable environment knowing both mum and dad in marriage in a family.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

The idea is NuMarvel, and it may be rather novel, that 'Marriage' is not particularly about just two people but also about the family they have?





That is ridiculous, and I think you know it. If a couple who are male and female marry they more often than not believe they might have children - if a couple marry and they don't it doesn't mean that their pledge to each other is any less - in fact, it cements them.

Marriage is not a 'legal' term, it's a life thing, a coupling - it's about children and family - and about the children and their rights 'to' parents - it's not about parents rights over others, or lovers etc. etc.

It's about a child and their right 'to' their parents - and the commitment of a couple can't be just undermined or disregarded as unimportant, because it is not unimportant - it's very important. Take a walk down the path that only saw marriage as not important and see the results and heartbreak - both of children and parents and the legal mess.

The minute you reduce marriage, you reduce the child's right to their parents - not the parents rights - the child. The idea of being brought up in a stable environment knowing both mum and dad in marriage in a family.

What do you say to couples that get married and have decided never to have children ? I know of a number of such couples .

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

What do you say to couples that get married and have decided never to have children ? I know of a number of such couples .

I would say that they choose to marry and decided that children weren't part of their ideal life together - even though there is a possibility that they may have one - I know the very best of parents too Marien who never thought they could cut parenthood and they are fabulous!

Did they get married in the Church, your friends, of have a civil marriage?

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I would say that they choose to marry and decided that children weren't part of their ideal life together - even though there is a possibility that they may have one - I know the very best of parents too Marien who never thought they could cut parenthood and they are fabulous!

Did they get married in the Church, your friends, of have a civil marriage?

Church, and there is no possibility of children at this stage . It is not a question of ''cuting'' parenthood, they consciously decided they were never having kids and on that basis they married and as far as I can see they have no regrets.

And I have come across a lot of younger people in Ireland that are adamant they will never have kids. Should they be banned from getting married ?

1ZRed

lmaopml wrote: »

I would say that they choose to marry and decided that children weren't part of their ideal life together - even though there is a possibility that they may have one - I know the very best of parents too Marien who never thought they could cut parenthood and they are fabulous!

Did they get married in the Church, your friends, of have a civil marriage?

What if one of them was infertile? Should they have a civil marriage because of that instead of a marriage in a church?

It's a bit tiring how this whole "marriage is marriage because of the possibility of children" thing gets spat out, but it's been shot down time and time again. It's not a valid argument to make when apposing gay marriage when infertile couples or couples who do not wish to have children can get married freely.

Marriage is about commitment first and foremost and not about children, otherwise it'd be a requirement that you needed to have children to avoid your marriage being voided.

JimiTime

NuMarvel wrote: »

You have a very low opinion of people if you think they're not able to make up their own minds on this matter.

They do make up their own minds, its that people have been bombarded with propaganda without knowing it. Thats what makes it effective. Like the woman in the article gets at, do something explicitly, and it needs to go through a persons filters and be reasoned going into the mind. Insidiously hatch an agenda over the course of years, and it implicitly makes its way into the psyche, so that people think that the opinions they have, have actually be born in themselves. I saw it with the Jehovahs Witnesses, and see how effective it is.

1ZRed

JimiTime wrote: »

They do make up their own minds, its that people have been bombarded with propaganda without knowing it. Thats what makes it effective. Like the woman in the article gets at, do something explicitly, and it needs to go through a persons filters and be reasoned going into the mind. Insidiously hatch an agenda over the course of years, and it implicitly makes its way into the psyche, so that people think that the opinions they have, have actually be born in themselves. I saw it with the Jehovahs Witnesses, and see how effective it is.

So by that logic our tolerance and acceptance towards minorities like black people was just a slow-set insidious agenda over the years as well? Well I'll be damned!

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

Church, and there is no possibility of children at this stage . It is not a question of ''cuting'' parenthood, they consciously decided they were never having kids and on that basis they married and as far as I can see they have no regrets.

And I have come across a lot of younger people in Ireland that are adamant they will never have kids. Should they be banned from getting married ?

Wow, if they got married in the Catholic Church they made a vow to love and protect the children that may come about from their union? Now perhaps they were older I don't know the circumstances...so won't go there..

As far as a Civil Marriage is concerned the same thing applies, that a child has a right to it's parent - and not the parent to the child. That's the difference Marien, and the similarity. That's why a Priest sometimes acts as a registrar.

So, again - what does marriage and the vow mean if it is merely about only two people and not about the family? It was always about the protection of the family and the children to the right to their parents, both their mum and their dad. In Christianity we call it a 'covenant' - but it's not much different to how the law describes and protects children, although sometimes it can be bias...

...nothing on this earth is perfect - but that doesn't mean that we should desire less for children and more for us.

JimiTime

Corkfeen wrote: »

Congratulations at attempting to make gay rights sound like a Bond villain's plot.

You should read, 'After The Ball'

What is so 'insidious' about it besides your vague assertions that it will negatively affect marriage? You claim that it could open the slippery slope to polygamy and the likes even though you could say marriage itself or inter-racial marriage did the exact same thing.

Nothing like it in the slightest. Inter-racial marriage did not require the redefinition of marriage. Also, as much as people (with absolutely no reasoning at all) dismiss the slippery slope argument, it is VERY real. People have now made out that marriage is about the state telling people who they can love. People have bought the stupidity on the back of the agenda's moulding of people over the years. Like I said before, you cannot reasonably argue against polyamorous or incestuous marriage once marriage has been defined as who the state tells you, you can love.

This doesn't mean that marriage or interracial marriage should be prevented, does it? Should we label all progressivism as insidious and regress entirely?

The regression is in man going back to being desire led and not valuing self control. There is nothing progressive at all.

JimiTime

1ZRed wrote: »

So by that logic our tolerance and acceptance towards minorities like black people was just a slow-set insidious agenda over the years as well? Well I'll be damned!

Not at all, but lumping an action or behaviour in with issues of skin colour is part of the insidious agenda.

1ZRed

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, but lumping an action or behaviour in with issues of skin colour is part of the insidious agenda.

At it's core it's the same thing as the issue of black and gay rights. Discrimination based solely on one aspect of that person and not their character as a whole.

You just call it an insidious agenda because you know it's true. The issues have come full circle. If you were Christian back in the 1940s you'd be against interratial marriages for wanting to keep the races "pure", but you were born in this age so you are Christian and geared towards being against gay marriage and rights.

We look back and see how wrong people were back then and how they apposed interratial marriage, as I hope you do too, and no doubt people will look back and see those who did appose gay rights were equally on the wrong side of history. There's no going around that. That'll happen.

You're on the losing team because there's nothing wrong with granting gay rights, there are no disastrous consequences, the family won't fall apart, neither will society and logic and reason will prevail and grant it.

With your vague and baseless argument against it, the fight won't be a difficult one.

aloyisious

France.... France signs gay marriage into law
Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 09:14 AM

French president Francois Hollande has signed a law authorising gay marriage and adoption by same-sex couples, after months of nationwide protests and wrenching debate.

His signature means the first gay marriages may be celebrated in France within about 10 days. Hollande’s office said he signed the bill today, a day after the Constitutional Council struck down a challenge to the law.

Hollande, a Socialist, had made legalising gay marriage one of his campaign pledges last year.

While polls for years have shown majority support for gay marriage in France, adoption by same-sex couples is more controversial.

The bill prompted months of widespread protests, largely by conservative and religious groups.

Some were marred by clashes with police. It became a flashpoint for frustrations at the increasingly unpopular Hollande.

Corkfeen

JimiTime wrote: »

You should read, 'After The Ball'



Nothing like it in the slightest. Inter-racial marriage did not require the redefinition of marriage. Also, as much as people (with absolutely no reasoning at all) dismiss the slippery slope argument, it is VERY real. People have now made out that marriage is about the state telling people who they can love. People have bought the stupidity on the back of the agenda's moulding of people over the years. Like I said before, you cannot reasonably argue against polyamorous or incestuous marriage once marriage has been defined as who the state tells you, you can love.



The regression is in man going back to being desire led and not valuing self control. There is nothing progressive at all.

Firstly, you're claim that it's regressive for a person to engage in homosexual relationships is illustrative of the fact that your main objections are religious. You claimed early that you're thinking of society first and foremost but can you really tell me that your reasoning behind that point isn't religious?

People once believed that marriage was solely between people of the same race. It was argued that allowing interracial marriage was a redefinition of it. So, it is very much so applicable. People believed the children would be corrupted and other such bull****. You could even argue that allowing divorce in Ireland acted as a redefinition of marriage so allowing interracial marriage definitely was.


In terms of incest or polygamy, the arguments against them are extremely different from those the rather weak arguments against gay marriage. Incest can genuinely be a part of being psychologically damage from a young age. The way in which many of these relationships have developed would call into question if the relationship is consensual or if they have been groomed. This is still ignoring aspects such as genetic mutation of offspring which may technically be condoned by legalising it. So it becomes far more complex than simply being attracted to someone of the same gender. So, the considerations are entirely different. Polygamy is between more than two people so different arguments arise. Same sex marriage should be considered individually rather than arguing that we shouldn't consider it at all in case other people want to get married.

The fact remains that you still haven't shown how it is insidious. You've implied that you believe that it is an illness that may be possible to cure. You claim that we have been moulded to accept something that is wrong by the media(like it did for women's right, reducing racism etc). However you can't truly explain why it's wrong outside of a religious context and you are free to have this belief. But if society were to abide by this in law, it would be highly regressive for society.

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, but lumping an action or behaviour in with issues of skin colour is part of the insidious agenda.

Not really, this is a legitimate contrast that you simply deny. It's only insidious in your mind because it points to another significant point of intolerance in the twentieth century that has much in common with gay rights.

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

Wow, if they got married in the Catholic Church they made a vow to love and protect the children that may come about from their union? Now perhaps they were older I don't know the circumstances...so won't go there..

Does it matter if the couple were older? Does the Church apply an age limit to marriage? Even if the Church does, the State doesn't.

lmaopml wrote: »

As far as a Civil Marriage is concerned the same thing applies, that a child has a right to it's parent - and not the parent to the child. That's the difference Marien, and the similarity. That's why a Priest sometimes acts as a registrar.

A priest acts as a registrar because the State didn't want to put couples through two ceremonies. It wasn't because they thought that having a priest perform the ceremony would give children greater rights. And even then, I'm not sure how future children get greater protections when a priest marries the parents as opposed to someone else.

lmaopml wrote: »

So, again - what does marriage and the vow mean if it is merely about only two people and not about the family? It was always about the protection of the family and the children to the right to their parents, both their mum and their dad. In Christianity we call it a 'covenant' - but it's not much different to how the law describes and protects children, although sometimes it can be bias...

...nothing on this earth is perfect - but that doesn't mean that we should desire less for children and more for us.

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that not having children doesn't weaken the bonds of marriage, it actually strengthens them. Now you're claiming marriage can't just be about two people. That it HAS to be about children and their biological parents. Which is it?

aloyisious

Reference to insidious behaviour does not compute. It can lead to mud-slinging and demeaning debaters.

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

Wow, if they got married in the Catholic Church they made a vow to love and protect the children that may come about from their union? Now perhaps they were older I don't know the circumstances...so won't go there..

As far as a Civil Marriage is concerned the same thing applies, that a child has a right to it's parent - and not the parent to the child. That's the difference Marien, and the similarity. That's why a Priest sometimes acts as a registrar.

So, again - what does marriage and the vow mean if it is merely about only two people and not about the family? It was always about the protection of the family and the children to the right to their parents, both their mum and their dad. In Christianity we call it a 'covenant' - but it's not much different to how the law describes and protects children, although sometimes it can be bias...

...nothing on this earth is perfect - but that doesn't mean that we should desire less for children and more for us.

So if what if they made a vow ? That vow was to protect any children that might be born but in this case they choose not to have any . Is their marriage any less valid ?

marienbad

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all, but lumping an action or behaviour in with issues of skin colour is part of the insidious agenda.

And you lumping gay marriage with incest is just your variation on the same .

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

So if what if they made a vow ? That vow was to protect any children that might be born but in this case they choose not to have any . Is their marriage any less valid ?

If they had declared an intention not to have children, the RCC would have refused the sacrament, so yes as far as the church is concerned their marriage is not just less valid but completely invalid. (IS their such a thing as less valid even?).
So what? legally their just as married, the state doesn't make offspring a condition of marriage. It dose allow for the possibility as part of the contract so as far as gay marriage the same thing must apply. Again no legal definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples other than an assumption that it didn't mean 'them'.

NuMarvel

tommy2bad wrote: »

If they had declared an intention not to have children, the RCC would have refused the sacrament, so yes as far as the church is concerned their marriage is not just less valid but completely invalid. (IS their such a thing as less valid even?).
So what? legally their just as married, the state doesn't make offspring a condition of marriage. It dose allow for the possibility as part of the contract so as far as gay marriage the same thing must apply. Again no legal definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples other than an assumption that it didn't mean 'them'.

What's more, the constitutional definition of family applies to all married couples, with or without children. And even if it were to only encompass couples with children, the argument that it should only apply to couples and their own biological children would disenfranchise hundreds of children with non-biological heterosexual parents in one fell swoop.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

You should read, 'After The Ball'



Nothing like it in the slightest. Inter-racial marriage did not require the redefinition of marriage. Also, as much as people (with absolutely no reasoning at all) dismiss the slippery slope argument, it is VERY real. People have now made out that marriage is about the state telling people who they can love. People have bought the stupidity on the back of the agenda's moulding of people over the years. Like I said before, you cannot reasonably argue against polyamorous or incestuous marriage once marriage has been defined as who the state tells you, you can love.

The regression is in man going back to being desire led and not valuing self control. There is nothing progressive at all.

For someone who wishes to avoid comparisons to interracial marriage, this is a terrible line of thinking to take considering that parts of the US up until the 1960s said that interracial marriage wasn't allowed.

You're actually making the case for same-sex marriage to be allowed due to the similarities to interracial marriage.

JimiTime

koth wrote: »

For someone who wishes to avoid comparisons to interracial marriage, this is a terrible line of thinking to take considering that parts of the US up until the 1960s said that interracial marriage wasn't allowed.

You're actually making the case for same-sex marriage to be allowed due to the similarities to interracial marriage.

Not at all. Disallowing different races to marry each other requires no redefinition of marriage but rather a law forbidding it. To allow homosexuals to marry requires a redefinition of marriage itself. I understand why you would like to insist that these issues are the same, but in reality, however hard you insist, they are nothing like the same.

JimiTime

aloyisious wrote: »

Reference to insidious behaviour does not compute. It can lead to mud-slinging and demeaning debaters.

Not if there actually has been an agenda bubbling away. Then its just a part of the debate. You should read 'After the Ball'.

Delirium

JimiTime wrote: »

Not at all. Disallowing different races to marry each other requires no redefinition of marriage but rather a law forbidding it. To allow homosexuals to marry requires a redefinition of marriage itself. I understand why you would like to insist that these issues are the same, but in reality, however hard you insist, they are nothing like the same.

That's the point. Interracial couples couldn't get married because the legal parameters of marriage wouldn't allow for it. Just as there are legal parameters in place that say incestuous marriages aren't allowed. I really doubt that you would agree that the definition of marriage currently allows for incestuous unions.