Forum puts Democrats in hot seat over gay issues

[twa]

Well, equality wouldn't be an issue if there wasn't anything being missed out on. I think so far the benefits haven't been enumerated simply because its assumed that everyone has a pretty good idea of what the benefits of marriage are (especially the legal benefits).

Citing specific ways the lack of benefits hurts them and those that surround them,along with demonstrating the need will sway some people.

The real issue is that people often pretend to be willing to concede these benefits via Civil Union but come time to vote on the issue they will overwhelmingly be against anything that even resembles gay marriage.

Again, show the need and bring the focus on harm done not to just gays /lesbians, but to those around them....in short make it real instead of a abstract rights issue.

Affirmative action and divorce laws are both heavily flawed and I'd imagine that the majority of Americans would agree with me on that one. Never been a big fan of comparing one thing that needs to be changed with several other things that need to be changed.

I used those simply to show different treatment for different groups exist under the law...simply the way things work.

There are compelling reasons(at least in some eyes) for the different application of law or benefits.

Also, you have to consider that if a salaried employee gets laid off they will then get the same kind of benefits as someone who was unemployed to begin with (I use unemployed simply because I'm not familiar enough with how the gov't treats self-employment). The benefits apply to everyone... you just need to meet a specific financial requirement which may or may not be beyond your control.

Self-employed operate outside the unemployment scheme and are not covered by it....not the best example, but wth

Do you have an idea of what argument would work? It almost sounds as if you might have a vague idea of how to go about it but I'm not too sure there is anything viable enough to convince everyone

You will never convince everyone...you might not even convince me,but It beats the losing strategy of equality imo...which is taking a beating ,both in court and public,and could result in a constitutional ban as a backlash.

The important fact is you don't need to convince everyone,just enough....I'm afraid that's all the help I can give on a issue where I am in the opposition

[Larry]

old school tailgate action

:applause:

Smashmouth.

[Enter Apotheosis]

twa, you give off the strong impression that you simply won't be convinced no matter what is thrown at you. I could go to the trouble of doing what you're suggesting... but it would seem futile and it would be all to persuade a single person who is far from representative of the opposing view.

This is why I hate this issue.

[Destino]

To those who do not want gays to have the right to get married, I am going to pose the same questions I posed earlier:

If gay couples are allowed to get married, in what way will you be negatively impacted?

Why shouldn't gay couples have the right to get married?

And please, dont say "because I don't like it". I don't like tomatoes but you don't see me campaigning for tomato farms to be outlawed.

The argument against gay marriage is not an individual one but one of social impact. If gays are allowed to marry the fear is that this will be taken as the government, and thus american society, saying "being gay is acceptable". To many americans it is not. It is still viewed as immoral and completely wrong. Homosexuality in their mind should be discouraged as many continue to believe it is a choice.

I don't share these views but in the interest of dialogue we have to be honest about what both sides are saying. Trying to force them to answer your question when it ignores their position entirely doesn't accomplish anything.

[Enter Apotheosis]

The argument against gay marriage is not an individual one but one of social impact. If gays are allowed to marry the fear is that this will be taken as the government, and thus american society, saying "being gay is acceptable". To many americans it is not. It is still viewed as immoral and completely wrong. Homosexuality in their mind should be discouraged as many continue to believe it is a choice.

I don't share these views but in the interest of dialogue we have to be honest about what both sides are saying. Trying to force them to answer your question when it ignores their position entirely doesn't accomplish anything.

This is a nice follow-up to my post... this is definitely more representative of the opposing view.

[81artmonk]

I don't think anyone has responded to a damn thing I've said in this thread and I find it completely understandable... Larry is a ***** to argue with and I would just end up heaping on to anything he says. :laugh:

Nevertheless, I guess I'll throw my thoughts into the ring one more time.

One important aspect of the English language is that words carry both a denotation (strict, literal definition) and a connotation (based largely on present-day societal use). If we go simply by the dictionary definition everyone is a bigot. Its not like you stumbled upon some sort of revolutionary concept by checking an online dictionary. However, in the context of the conversation the word 'bigot' has a lot more bite to it and implies something bordering on complete intolerance or downright hatred of one or more groups of people.

So here I have somewhat of a proposal for you... instead of proving that you, yourself, are a bigot in front of everyone who reads the thread just to try and knock Larry down a peg why not try to prove to people that you are not a bigot?

Kamikaze tactics are for the weak and the desperate. Actions, however, speak louder than words. :2cents:

I'm trying to figure out why there isn't a good reason to extend the benefits to another group... they are benefits after all, right? What part of the benefits wouldn't be beneficial when applied to a larger group of people?

The problem here is that you're not really clear about what, exactly, you mean. I certainly can't decipher the point you're making...

The following is my interpretation of how Larry sees what you've been trying to say:

I was just trying to point out to larry that the use of the word pigeonholes him into that catagory also.

He doesn't really argue his point more than he tears down others opinions. One can argue that this is what I believe and why, while Larry simpley says this is my opinion and this is why your opinion sucks. Which I don't think lends him to being liked....at least by me. I don't think he is dumb, rather he is from what I have read very intelligent, but uses his intelligence to prove others stupid rather than just using it to share his viewpoints.

[twa]

twa, you give off the strong impression that you simply won't be convinced no matter what is thrown at you. I could go to the trouble of doing what you're suggesting... but it would seem futile and it would be all to persuade a single person who is far from representative of the opposing view.

This is why I hate this issue.

Well I have strong religious convictions against it,However most of the voters do not to the same degree.

However even I can be persuaded by a convincing argument to allow it despite disapproving of it...I believe in free will and personal choices/responsibility.

Divorce,abortion,drinking or selling of alcohol ect. are all also things that I oppose,yet allow(in the case of drinking especially ).

[81artmonk]

Folks, I'll try to see if I can simplify this discussion, by trying to state my position, as succinctly as possible:

1. Society only has the right to interfere with a person's individual liberties, to reward or punish, to promote or discourage, when it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent a clear and direct threat of that liberty infringing on someone else's liberties.
   
2. Allowing gays to marry does not, in any way, infringe on the liberties of any other people.
   

Now frankly, I have trouble figuring out how it's possible for a rational person to actually disagree with either of those statements. I would have thought that, to pluck a phrase, these truths are self-evident.

Which doesn't mean that I haven't seen a lot of (IMO) irrational disagreement.

I've heard "It's a choice". (Which, frankly, doesn't address either of those statements.)

I've heard "they can't have children". (But nobody wants to ban sterile people from marrying.)

I've heard "Well, it's OK to discriminate against this group, because this discrimination is a different kind of discrimination than discrimination against those other groups."

I've heard "we're not infringing on their liberties, we're simply telling them which sex they have to marry". (That one's always a hoot.)

I've heard "We're not discriminating against them, we're discriminating in favor of everybody except them." (Another real side-splitter.)

I've even heard "Society doesn't need a reason to discriminate against people, people need a reason not to be discriminated against."

What I haven't heard, is a single argument against either of those statements, that isn't so laughably illogical that I frankly have trouble believing that even the person typing them actually believes them.

I have yet to hear a single reason why it's necessary, in self defense, to prevent gays from injuring people by marrying each other. All I've read is "I disapprove of them", or "we don't need a reason".

Within the framework of what you stated is true, but The fact is they don't have the right now, and thus none of what you said applies. The arguement needs to be why should they have the right?? Just becuase someone says they should have the right doesn't mean they should.

as for the choice arguement, it makes a huge difference. If it is only a choice than it's merely a lifestyle and isn't something needing rights. If on the other hand is biological, than they can't help it and than they are in the same boat as anyone of us.

[81artmonk]

Well I have strong religious convictions against it,However most of the voters do not to the same degree.

However even I can be persuaded by a convincing argument to allow it despite disapproving of it...I believe in free will and personal choices/responsibility.

Divorce,abortion,drinking or selling of alcohol ect. are all also things that I oppose,yet allow(in the case of drinking especially ).

I completely agree with you. If I had to be honest, it's a sad thing that slowly the moral fiber of this country is being slowly chipped away. Look back 50 years and see what the moral arguements were and they pale in comparison to what we are debating here. I think alot of people are tired of watching it. It all starts with people saying this is ok and why should we deny certian things, than we allow that, and it's ok, than people move on to something else. We are the ones called intolerant. It's truely sad

[stevenaa]

Folks, I'll try to see if I can simplify this discussion, by trying to state my position, as succinctly as possible:

1. Society only has the right to interfere with a person's individual liberties, to reward or punish, to promote or discourage, when it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent a clear and direct threat of that liberty infringing on someone else's liberties.
   
2. Allowing gays to marry does not, in any way, infringe on the liberties of any other people.
   

Now frankly, I have trouble figuring out how it's possible for a rational person to actually disagree with either of those statements. I would have thought that, to pluck a phrase, these truths are self-evident.

Which doesn't mean that I haven't seen a lot of (IMO) irrational disagreement.

I've heard "It's a choice". (Which, frankly, doesn't address either of those statements.)

I've heard "they can't have children". (But nobody wants to ban sterile people from marrying.)

I've heard "Well, it's OK to discriminate against this group, because this discrimination is a different kind of discrimination than discrimination against those other groups."

I've heard "we're not infringing on their liberties, we're simply telling them which sex they have to marry". (That one's always a hoot.)

I've heard "We're not discriminating against them, we're discriminating in favor of everybody except them." (Another real side-splitter.)

I've even heard "Society doesn't need a reason to discriminate against people, people need a reason not to be discriminated against."

What I haven't heard, is a single argument against either of those statements, that isn't so laughably illogical that I frankly have trouble believing that even the person typing them actually believes them.

I have yet to hear a single reason why it's necessary, in self defense, to prevent gays from injuring people by marrying each other. All I've read is "I disapprove of them", or "we don't need a reason".

Homosexuality is an individual liberty, marriage is not. You have the right to choose your sexual orientation. That doesn't mean I have to accept the decision/behavior as right or moral. If someone believes homosexuality is wrong, why would they support gay marriage? For the most part, the points of contest for both sides are completely different. It isn't about direct impact for those opposed. It is about right or wrong. You would accuse me of trying to legislate morality, when that is exactly what those who want to grant legal rights are doing. Ironic, isn't it?

[Larry]

The argument against gay marriage is not an individual one but one of social impact. If gays are allowed to marry the fear is that this will be taken as the government, and thus american society, saying "being gay is acceptable". To many americans it is not. It is still viewed as immoral and completely wrong. Homosexuality in their mind should be discouraged as many continue to believe it is a choice.

I don't share these views but in the interest of dialogue we have to be honest about what both sides are saying. Trying to force them to answer your question when it ignores their position entirely doesn't accomplish anything.

No one is ignoring their position. Many are simply asserting that the government has neither the Constitutional authority, nor the moral right, to punish a minority group simply because a large group of people don't like them.

I keep remembering a scene from one of Eastwood's Any Which Way movies. Eastwood has tricked the motorcycle gang that's chasing him into covering themselves in tar. Removal of the tar has caused them to lose all of their hair. The gang members are embarrassed by lacking hair, so they've bought wigs. Women's wigs. (Which doesn't really improve their morale any.)

The gang gets pulled over by a couple of redneck cops. (The gang leader is happy. He wants the gang to get harassed. Thinks it will make the gang feel tough again.)

The cops get out of the squad car, see the motorcycle gang wearing women's wigs, and start laughing. Gang leader gets mad. He demands that the cops harass them.

The older cop, as he's walking back to the car, still laughing, says:

"You (laugh) are an offense (laugh) to the laws of (laugh) nature."

"But (laugh) we don't enforce those laws."

I understand that a lot of folks don't like gays. (I lean a bit that way, myself.) And no one is expecting (let alone demanding) that that change.

What I have a problem with is their belief that, because there are a lot of people who don't like gays, that this somehow entitles them to demand that the government enforce their dislikes.

[Larry]

Within the framework of what you stated is true, but The fact is they don't have the right now, and thus none of what you said applies. The arguement needs to be why should they have the right?? Just becuase someone says they should have the right doesn't mean they should.

And yet another repetition of the "society doesn't need a reason to discriminate, people need a reason why society shouldn't discriminate".

I've given a reason not to discriminate: Discrimination is bad.

I have yet to hear a reason why we should discriminate, other than "I don't like them", or "I don't need a reason".

as for the choice arguement, it makes a huge difference. If it is only a choice than it's merely a lifestyle and isn't something needing rights. If on the other hand is biological, than they can't help it and than they are in the same boat as anyone of us.

Again: "It's a choice" isn't a reason why we should discriminate. It's a reason why you think we can.

[Ax]

Folks, I'll try to see if I can simplify this discussion, by trying to state my position, as succinctly as possible:

1. Society only has the right to interfere with a person's individual liberties, to reward or punish, to promote or discourage, when it is necessary to do so, in order to prevent a clear and direct threat of that liberty infringing on someone else's liberties.

True. But no one's liberties are being interfered with here. It's the gay community that is forcing the issue with their desire to have their lifestyle recognized as normal, when it is not.

Allowing gays to marry does not, in any way, infringe on the liberties of any other people.

Again, it would be forcing the view of a very small number of people, that their particular quirk be accepted by the majority. Who's next, the folks who wanna **** a ham sandwich?

Now frankly, I have trouble figuring out how it's possible for a rational person to actually disagree with either of those statements. I would have thought that, to pluck a phrase, these truths are self-evident.

Which doesn't mean that I haven't seen a lot of (IMO) irrational disagreement.

One could say your application of (A) in this case is, irrational.

I've heard "It's a choice". (Which, frankly, doesn't address either of those statements.)

No, but if it is a choice, it blows your link to the civil rights movement out of the water. Of course, the attempt to tie them together is absurd anyway.

I've heard "they can't have children". (But nobody wants to ban sterile people from marrying.)

Weak. You know that the meaning implied by this kind of statement is, if EVERY man in the world only had sex with other men, or every woman only had sex with other women, babies can not be made, naturally. Comparisons to sterile people is idiotic. You know this, but choose to pose them anyway.

I've heard "Well, it's OK to discriminate against this group, because this discrimination is a different kind of discrimination than discrimination against those other groups."

I've heard "we're not infringing on their liberties, we're simply telling them which sex they have to marry". (That one's always a hoot.)

I've heard "We're not discriminating against them, we're discriminating in favor of everybody except them." (Another real side-splitter.)

I've even heard "Society doesn't need a reason to discriminate against people, people need a reason not to be discriminated against."

Again, I don't see it as discrimination. It's simply refusing to acknowledge the homosexual lifestyle as acceptable.

What I haven't heard, is a single argument against either of those statements, that isn't so laughably illogical that I frankly have trouble believing that even the person typing them actually believes them.

Can just as accurately define you and your position.

I have yet to hear a single reason why it's necessary, in self defense, to prevent gays from injuring people by marrying each other. All I've read is "I disapprove of them", or "we don't need a reason".

There is no reason to grant special status to every group of people who think they deserve it.

I know you have a compulsive need to label everyone who doesn't see this issue your way, as a bigot that just hates homo's, and wants to drive them all into the sea. You're wrong about that too.

[Larry]

Homosexuality is an individual liberty, marriage is not. You have the right to choose your sexual orientation. That doesn't mean I have to accept the decision/behavior as right or moral.

And not one person has said that you should.

Tell me why it's the government's job to enforce your dislikes.

If someone believes homosexuality is wrong, why would they support gay marriage?

Uh, because they recognize that it's not the government's job to punish people simply because I don't like them? That there exist people in the world that they disagree with, but that their disagrement shouldn't be settled by having Big Brother discriminate against whichever side of the disagreement has the fewer votes?

Because they believe in freedom? (Which includes the freedom to be wrong?)

It isn't about direct impact for those opposed. It is about right or wrong. You would accuse me of trying to legislate morality, when that is exactly what those who want to grant legal rights are doing. Ironic, isn't it?

Sorry. "Right or wrong" is simply a cowards way of saying either "my personal opinion", or "some other opinion (like my religion) that I chose to agree with".

Yeah, it's just my opinion, but I don't think the government has either the Constitutional authority or the moral right to punish people for disagreeing with my opinions. No matter how many or few people agree with them.

Is it really your position that the only standard that the government has to meet, in order to use it's power to punish people, is "do enough people not like this group"? If that's the case, then we can just scrap, for example, what's left of the Constitution. Liberty and equality don't matter any more, only which side wins in the polls.

(And one of the differences between "my morality" and "your morality" is: My morality has room for your morality. I'm not demanding that the government punish you because of yours. Just as "equality" is a goal that's worthy in itself, and doesn't need a "better" reason to justify it, there's a difference between legislating morality and not legislating morality.)

[twa]

Larry, Does rewarding one person or group mean you are punishing all others?

Cause as far as your equality argument I and the court don't see it.

[isle-hawg]

Again: "It's a choice" isn't a reason why we should discriminate. It's a reason why you think we can.

If gay marriages are permitted, are multiple spouses (at the same time) next? If not, why not are we then as society not discriminating against them? If we say yes to all how does that benefit society at large?

There is nothing in place to stop people from being homsexual or having multiple sex parteners at the same time, but what is the benefit to the state to formally recognize (and encourage) either as an institution?

[ACW]

isle-hawg, I think polygamy SHOULD be legal if between consenting adults.

You know what, I think I'll just sit back and enjoy this... :munchout: Actually, I better get more refreshments. :munchout: :munchout:

[81artmonk]

True. But no one's liberties are being interfered with here. It's the gay community that is forcing the issue with their desire to have their lifestyle recognized as normal, when it is not.

Again, it would be forcing the view of a very small number of people, that their particular quirk be accepted by the majority. Who's next, the folks who wanna **** a ham sandwich?

One could say your application of (A) in this case is, irrational.

No, but if it is a choice, it blows your link to the civil rights movement out of the water. Of course, the attempt to tie them together is absurd anyway.

Weak. You know that the meaning implied by this kind of statement is, if EVERY man in the world only had sex with other men, or every woman only had sex with other women, babies can not be made, naturally. Comparisons to sterile people is idiotic. You know this, but choose to pose them anyway.

Again, I don't see it as discrimination. It's simply refusing to acknowledge the homosexual lifestyle as acceptable.

Can just as accurately define you and your position.

There is no reason to grant special status to every group of people who think they deserve it.

I know you have a compulsive need to label everyone who doesn't see this issue your way, as a bigot that just hates homo's, and wants to drive them all into the sea. You're wrong about that too.

:allhail: That was great!! Brilliant! :applause:

[Larry]

Larry, Does rewarding one person or group mean you are punishing all others?

1) Yes, it does.

The only thing governments are capable of doing, is interfering in people's liberties. Whether it's promoting Option A or discouraging Option B, it's still interference.

(That's why I chose, in Larry's Declaration of Position, the term "interfere".)

Government cannot create freedom or liberty. It can only limit it.

2) Frankly, your efforts at "It's not discriminating against gays, it's rewarding everybody except gays" lacks another factor in your attempt to hide your position.

The position that exists now isn't a case of the government rewarding one group. It's a case of the government "rewarding" (your term) everybody in the country except gays.

(And the stated reason for the exception is "Gays are bad", or the variations like "we don't approve of".)

When the government allows people who donate to charity to write it off on their taxes, it's rewarding the (small, compared to the population) group who so donate.

If the government were to pass a tax credit that cut the taxes of every person in the country except Redskins season ticket holders, then they're not rewarding 99.9% of the population, they're punishing 0.1%.

(Especially if the tax credit law was already on the books, and the government came around later and wrote "Doesn't apply to Redskin season ticket holders" over the already-existing law.)

[81artmonk]

Tell me why it's the government's job to enforce your dislikes.

The govt. is doing what the majority at this time see's fit. As others have said before, a small group is demanding the govt. see them in a way that many feel they aren't intitled. You call it discrimination, others call it not giving into every group that wants to be recongized. The Govt. discriminates against, prostitutes, poligimy, in some states they even tell consenting adults that oral sex in private between two married couples is against the law.

Uh, because they recognize that it's not the government's job to punish people simply because I don't like them? That there exist people in the world that they disagree with, but that their disagrement shouldn't be settled by having Big Brother discriminate against whichever side of the disagreement has the fewer votes?

I hate to point out that you may feel, that the system may be flawed, but this is how our system works. We elect people to represent us who share our beliefs and the side with the most votes wins. Do you not think if the vast majority of America wanted gay marriage it would be legal right now??

Sorry. "Right or wrong" is simply a cowards way of saying either "my personal opinion", or "some other opinion (like my religion) that I chose to agree with".

Well, that's sort of the problem now days. People have so gone away from right and wrong. It's become a personal choice and not a black and white issue

Yeah, it's just my opinion, but I don't think the government has either the Constitutional authority or the moral right to punish people for disagreeing with my opinions. No matter how many or few people agree with them.

I think to say the Govt. is punishing gays is kind of extreme. That may be what gays think, but the govt is only doing what the majority of the American people say they want right now.

Is it really your position that the only standard that the government has to meet, in order to use it's power to punish people, is "do enough people not like this group"? If that's the case, then we can just scrap, for example, what's left of the Constitution. Liberty and equality don't matter any more, only which side wins in the polls.

Again you use the word punish. Our govt isn't punishing gays. They are demanding something that the vast majority of Americans don't think they should have right now. I hate to point out again that our system works that way. the side with the most votes does get what they want.

(And one of the differences between "my morality" and "your morality" is: My morality has room for your morality. I'm not demanding that the government punish you because of yours. Just as "equality" is a goal that's worthy in itself, and doesn't need a "better" reason to justify it, there's a difference between legislating morality and not legislating morality.)

That's part of the problem anyway. No one in power knows exactly what morality is. The reason Sodam and Gomora was destroyed by God, was that their moral compass was so far off, and everything was ok, that nothing was wrong. I feel you are being false when you say "My morality has room for your morality" Well, no not really, because you have just said in past posts that my morality is bigotry and discrimination and therefore oppressing a group of people of their rights. That doesn't sound like making room.

[Larry]

If gay marriages are permitted, are multiple spouses (at the same time) next? If not, why not are we then as society not discriminating against them? If we say yes to all how does that benefit society at large?

There is nothing in place to stop people from being homsexual or having multiple sex parteners at the same time, but what is the benefit to the state to formally recognize (and encourage) either as an institution?

Did you bother to read this thread?

Or is simply repeating the same lines that didn't work two pages ago the limit of the reasoning ability of "your side"?

I've stated my position. ("the government only has the right to restrict individual liberty if such restriction is necessary to protect some other person's liberty". If Dan Snyder marries the Redskinettes, who's rights is he infringing on?)

(I've stated, in earlier threads, why I don't like the idea of polygamy. My short position is "If 4 guys want to marry 5 women, then they're not proposing marriage, they're forming a corporation." That one of the fundamental characteristics of a marriage is exclusivity. (That whole "forsaking all others" thing.) But, IMO, I don't know if my objection is enough of one to justify government intervention. I'm not going to go on a jihad for polygamists rights, but I wouldn't oppose them much, either.)

And your second paragraph is nothing more than a re-statement of "we don't need a reason to discriminate, people need a reason (that's good enough for us) why we can't discriminate."

[ACW]

The govt. is doing what the majority at this time see's fit. As others have said before, a small group is demanding the govt. see them in a way that many feel they aren't intitled. You call it discrimination, others call it not giving into every group that wants to be recongized. The Govt. discriminates against, prostitutes, poligimy, in some states they even tell consenting adults that oral sex in private between two married couples is against the law.

And you know, the gov't SHOULDN'T forbit prostitution, polygamy, etc, etc. And just cause a majority believes something doesn't mean it should become law (and vice versa).

[twa]

OK, since you prefer "interfere" now ,rather than discriminate or punish, perhaps we are making progress.

The government interferes in our lives in many ways and as I have tried to show it is not fair nor equal in application....so we agree there.

The government recognizes the value of the family unit and "interferes" by extending benefits to those that make up the family unit.

However that "interference is limited to only a man and woman that meet all the requirements.

So should we eliminate the "interference" or allow them to interfere more by adding more groups?

I would be perfectly content to remove their influence as much as possible.

Quote Larry

The position that exists now isn't a case of the government rewarding one group. It's a case of the government "rewarding" (your term) everybody in the country except gays.

This position is wrong,as the reward is exclusive in nature.

Just as any reward is. :2cents:

[stevenaa]

And not one person has said that you should.

Tell me why it's the government's job to enforce your dislikes.

Uh, because they recognize that it's not the government's job to punish people simply because I don't like them? That there exist people in the world that they disagree with, but that their disagrement shouldn't be settled by having Big Brother discriminate against whichever side of the disagreement has the fewer votes?

Because they believe in freedom? (Which includes the freedom to be wrong?)

Sorry. "Right or wrong" is simply a cowards way of saying either "my personal opinion", or "some other opinion (like my religion) that I chose to agree with".

Yeah, it's just my opinion, but I don't think the government has either the Constitutional authority or the moral right to punish people for disagreeing with my opinions. No matter how many or few people agree with them.

Is it really your position that the only standard that the government has to meet, in order to use it's power to punish people, is "do enough people not like this group"? If that's the case, then we can just scrap, for example, what's left of the Constitution. Liberty and equality don't matter any more, only which side wins in the polls.

(And one of the differences between "my morality" and "your morality" is: My morality has room for your morality. I'm not demanding that the government punish you because of yours. Just as "equality" is a goal that's worthy in itself, and doesn't need a "better" reason to justify it, there's a difference between legislating morality and not legislating morality.)

We'll obviously never agree. Making a choice in lifestlye is not reason enough to get special or even equal treatment. There is nothing cowardice about my belief that it is an immoral lifestyle that I don't want my government legitimizing. The government isn't punishing people for being gay, it simply isn't rewarding them.

[isle-hawg]

Did you bother to read this thread?

Or is simply repeating the same lines that didn't work two pages ago the limit of the reasoning ability of "your side"?

I've stated my position. ("the government only has the right to restrict individual liberty if such restriction is necessary to protect some other person's liberty". If Dan Snyder marries the Redskinettes, who's rights is he infringing on?)

Yes Larry I read the thread, thanks for asking.... Did you read my posts? What liberty is being infringed upon by not marrying someone of the same sex and or multiple partners?

On a personal level I could care less if Dan Snyder married the Redskinettes but why should the government formally recoginize his banging and supporting the Redskinettes as a marriage? What is the benefit to the state??

Children are born via 1 man banging 1 women (you probably already knew that:)) . If the mother and father are not both working together to support the child there are good chances the child will be dependent on the state for resources ($$$), therefore the institution of marriage (parents) is a good thing for the state as it helps alleviate the welfare burden on those of us who did not bring said child into this world.

People can have civil unions and do whatever they want to, but it is in the states best interest to promote keeping the fathers around with the mothers to raise the children they bring into this world. You could argue what does it hurt to let gays marry. In a static environment I would have to say nothing. In the dynamic environment that is the real world I would say it would do nothing to help.