South Africa's high court approves gay marriage

[Aliantha]

Over here all the kids say, 'that's so gay' when referring to something they consider suckful etc. I caught my kids saying it and reprimanded them...while reminding them what the word gay means. I don't know if gay people would find it offensive or not. I probably should ask some time, but I just don't think about it that much.

[9th Engineer]

No, my reasoning has been spread over quite a few different posts I guess, I'll explain. I believe that I must behave in accordence with the current state of the system, and I also believe that once I make a stand on an issue I must stand by my logic or take back everything based on it right back to the first step. Refering back to something I posted a short while ago I explained my doubts with making a first step because the rest of the system will not be able to remain in isolation from it (that's what I meant when I said it affects me, I am responsible for everything I stand for). So if I said, "I will vote on my conscience that everyone has the right to marry who they love" then I have to make all subsequent decisions without breaking that statement. Because our society is so interlinked other groups would be able to make strong cases based on the same logic, polygamists are already poised to start pushing mainstream. No matter what the consequences of my first decision, I am obliged to support new people and new causes which I may feel very strongly against, because otherwise I would be a hypocrite. Polygamy by itself is a good example. If it becomes mainstream and is purged of the obvious abuses that plauge the isolated communities now then people would probably say that it was a good thing to legalize it. However, the ramifications of legal polygamy are much more complicated (this has been brought up I think), and would probably cause harm overall. However, I would still be stuck by my original statement that people who love each other should be allowed to marry, and can you look at a group of people and say who does and does not love each other? Because of all this I feel that I cannot make that first statement, because I cannot ignore the problems and abuses (intentional and unintentional) that may follow later as a result.
That is how it will affect me tw, I cannot pretend that I live in a system other than the one we have, or that I can make idealistic decisions and retract earlier statements as I see fit. You would be asking me to turn a blind eye to my eventual hypocracy.

[Flint]

That's a long-winded version of "if we allow gays, what's next, bestiality?" etc. ad nauseum...
That's weak-sauce, IMO. Illogical premise, purposefully-illogical outcome. G.I.G.O.

[Aliantha]

Why can't you make one decision for the sake of that particular decision then worry about the next one when it happens?

It seems to me you're more worried about who else besides gay people might be able to lay claim to the right to marry.

From my perspective, I support gay marriage. I'm not sure what i think about polygamous marriages and so don't really have a point of view on that as yet other than that if all parties love each other then it would seem fair.

Do you see the reasoning. One thing at a time. Might make life easier for yourself.

[bluecuracao]

9th, you obviously recognize the legitimate point of view regarding gay marriage, but you're lumping it in with a bunch of other crap. Take a breather to separate the issues, and it will make more sense.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Flint

That's a long-winded version of "if we allow gays, what's next, bestiality?" etc. ad nauseum...

I don't see that in 9th's post. Admirable is his ideal that one must be so careful so as to never make a mistake. However, blindly sticking to a mistake, no matter what, is also called .... Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is indeed a wonderfully smart man. Intelligence that is lost, useless, so destructive, and classic anti-American only because Rumsfeld also was not smart enough to admit and was so emotionally attached to his mistakes. There is nothing admirable in that mindset that even justified the holocaust and killing fields.

But again, none of this explains how gay marriage adversely affects anyone. It only says, "I was wrong but my principles will not allow me to ever be right." With Rumsfeld, that was a prescription to justify mass murder.

Principle is also characteristic of one who believes he is the new messiah. Does that personal (religous) belief justify hate of gay marriage.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I believe that I must behave in accordence with the current state of the system, ...

IOW stifling innovation is good? America's greatest secret for success is about change, innovation, and therefore the advancement of mankind. An engineer would never be so anti-American. And yet that is 9th's stated principles. Meanwhile, that principle does not prove that gay marriage adversely affects anyone.

9th Engineer's post reminds me of Eisenhower who knew he was wrong and would have to lie to an embarrassing question. Ike’s press conference answer made same sense as 9th Engineer's post so that the press would not dare ask any more questions. Ike's answer was a ‘total nonsense’ classic. So is 9th Engineer's reply.

Sorry 9th. I am not buying it. Like Eisenhower, you have not explained anything. Posting gobbledygook does not explain why gay marriage affects you.

So do you really believe you are the new messiah?

Either way, still unanswered is how gay marriage adversely affects anyone. Why no answer? When we have eliminated all other possibilities, the valid answer is one that remains. Apparently gay marriage only hurts emotions of those who hate gays. Why is that the only answer? Because still intentionally unanswered: how does gay marriage harm anyone. Gay marriage should be banned only because it is a classic example of being American – because it is socially innovative? Such innovation only hurts emotions of those who hate.

Clearly gay marriage harms no one. Clearly banning of gay marriage does harm some. Clearly this issue would be totally irrelevant if others did not so hate - gays and social innovation. Amazing how some so hate things that made America great. So we have an answer based in gobbledygook. Turkeys live!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

Big snip of good points ~ I don't want to debate any of these topics here, because instead of logical discussion/argument there will only be ad hominem attacks and spurious accusations. From here on I think I'll just lurk on the borders of Orwell-land.

You make some good points. Yes, there is too much personal derision vs disagreement with positions, but I think that human nature. It's probably because people are emotional animals, for better or worse. I think it probably keeps some lurkers lurking rather than adding their thoughts because they are afraid of having to defend their position.

I also think it's human nature to defend your thoughts/feelings, even if someone posts a logical argument you haven't thought of, because to accept their argument would be admitting you hadn't been smart enough to think it through, hadn't prepared properly.
That's a shame because it makes posting a risk in self esteem and social (online) standing, rather than casual conversation that can bring lots of views and opinions to light.

That said, I know I'm as guilty as anyone in arguing points aggressively.
I try to stick to the issues but....sometimes I forget my original signature, "Don't make it personal, don't take it personal".

orthodoc, we haven't achieved nirvana here yet, but I haven't found any place better, have you?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

EDIT... I wish you could see what other people have posted since you started writing your new post

After you write your post, hit refresh and check, before you hit "submit entry".

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh yeah, gay marriage?
Sure.... it's about time those queers got to experience a break up that means losing more than their underwear.
The pleasure of not being able to collect your Social Security because they only allow one payment per couple.
The convenience of not being able to make major financial planning moves without somebody else's notarized signature.
The thrill of paying higher car insurance because you love a klutz.

Yes indeedy, share the wonderful world of having your nesting blessed by the government.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't see that in 9th's post.

Really? He said we can't allow gay marriage because we'd have to allow everything else, and I pointed out that this is a well-worn "talking point" against gay marriage. I'm not sure if you read his post, because if you did I don't understand what you "don't see" in it. I'm absolutely sure he didn't say anything about Rumsfled, so I think you may be confused about which thread you're in. This is the gay marriage thread.

[Ibby]

However, if you remove love from the equasion as 9th advocates, you DONT HAVE TO allow anything else... because, as I stated, saying someone can or can't do something based simply on their gender, for ANY reason, is sexism, and on as issue as important as marriage then it is completely, utterly unacceptable.

That's not even in the same ballpark as allowing polygamy, bestiality, or anything else at all.

[xoxoxoBruce]

because, as I stated, saying someone can or can't do something based simply on their gender, for ANY reason, is sexism,...

So you think you should be allowed to use the ladies room?
Marriage, and who can and can't, is not simple. It's not a right, it's a privilege granted by the government, that carries rights, benefits and liabilities. Like any privilege the government grants, they establish what the rules are and that is never simple. That's why there is a debate.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

It is the case that any adult can draw up a health care proxy document

What I said "no they don't" to was that gays are treated the same as married couples, which is proven by the need for the extra steps described.

(sample forms available free on the 'net; no need for 'enough money for legal fees')

And what I said they need legal fees for was to duplicate "any benefits of marriage that they think of ahead of time, which straight couples can take for granted", of which there are over a thousand, only a few of which could be done by filling in a standard form (even then, one more form than married couples need). A "marriage-duplicating" contract would need to be hundreds of pages long, and even longer if the couple has any intention of moving to a different state. That contract isn't a standard form, would cost a lot of money, and would be subject to any number of legal challenges due to its complexity that a simple marriage license would not. It also would be a snapshot of current law (as far as the lawyer was able to duplicate) and would not be affected if marriage laws were updated. Further, there are plenty of marriage benefits that cannot be contracted for at all, including survivors' benefits.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

... I believe that I must behave in accordence with the current state of the system,...

If everyone took that approach, the would be no USA - we just would have behaved in the current (British) system. We also would never have allowed women or African Americans to vote.

Allowing same-gender marriage would not create a whole new set of laws. It would merely allow a greater number of people to be married.

BTW - Do you feel that you must behave in accordance with the current state of other systems? For instance, you don't want to change the current welfare system?

Originally Posted by orthodoc

It is the case that any adult can draw up a health care proxy document (sample forms available free on the 'net; no need for 'enough money for legal fees') and name whomever they wish as their medical decisions proxy should they be incapacitated. These documents are honored by medical personnel. Anyone can be named - your neighbor, your friend, your partner. The 'google' reference is simply wrong, unless filling in a couple of names on a form is regarded as exceptionally 'difficult'.

I question many of the other 'difficult of impossible' items on that list, too. Joint adoption? It's been happening. Name change? Anyone can change his or her name for any reason. The list has been compiled by people who have a clear bias, and it isn't entirely accurate.

The other thing I question is the bizarre wholesale feeding frenzy taking place on a forum member who a) disagrees with those who happen to be frequenting the thread and b) has the temerity to say so. So he makes an argument you don't like or agree with. Isn't this a discussion forum? Or is it really just a mutual admiration society where no one is allowed to disagree? I was told this was an interesting place full of different opinions and ideas, but what I see is a single, very narrow perspective on politics, morality, ethical issues, and religion. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to the prevailing point of view is personally attacked, insulted directly and by insinuation, and driven away (proudly) by the very angry regulars.

If disagreement on an ethical or political issue makes you foam at the mouth, shouldn't you question yourself? Or is forced groupthink the true agenda? Or is this just a forum for returning to the schoolyard - oh, wait - some members did that explicitly, didn't they? Some of the same members who also have imperfect spelling?

I just moved back from Canada, where there was and continues to be a lot of discussion about gay marriage. There was some very good debate, and people who disagreed could agree to disagree. I thought that might be the case here.

I can see that most frequent posters regard themselves as extremely broad-minded and tolerant. But if only one opinion is tolerated, that's about as provincial as it gets. Why isn't anyone here permitted to disagree with changing the definition of marriage? (Some black leaders and black groups have gone on record against gay marriage, and against the idea that it's a civil right. Why not discuss why they took that position?) Why don't we question the existence of 'diversity' and 'tolerance' programs? Aren't they an artificial imposition of someone's principles on everyone else? Does anyone here feel nervous about being 'reeducated' until our views match the prescribed politically correct one?

I don't want to debate any of these topics here, because instead of logical discussion/argument there will only be ad hominem attacks and spurious accusations. From here on I think I'll just lurk on the borders of Orwell-land.

I could give a fuck what anyone else thinks or says. I disagree with his destructive, exclusionary, opinion, that could spread and continue the trend that harms others... so I disagree.
You don't like it and think I am wrong, show me where and precisely how with logic and reason.
Sounds to me like you just like and underdog... been waiting for this typical syndrome.
No one says this of me and my stance on guns... funny that, huh?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Over here all the kids say, 'that's so gay' when referring to something they consider suckful etc. I caught my kids saying it and reprimanded them...while reminding them what the word gay means. I don't know if gay people would find it offensive or not. I probably should ask some time, but I just don't think about it that much.

It is just slang. I know gay kids that say it.
Just like I know white kids that call each other "my nigger" now.
It is not harmful.
It takes the that term's ability to do harm away.
It is a good thing.
Only older gays dislike it, as far as I have seen.
It used to drive me nuts until I realized it was not just a local thing because my wife used it... I'm old.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

How am I discriminating based on gender?? I really don't think homosexuality is the case of a woman's mind being born into a man's body (or the other way round), but even if it was it still wouldn't be gender discrimination. You are basing your argument on the idea that the legal bond of marriage is based on love, I don't believe that. A gay man can marry a woman even if he doesn't love her (I'd take your side completely if someone suggested making sure gay men couldn't sire children), but you say that because he loves another man that he should be granted the extra right of marrying him instead. That's a big point of disagreement between us and unfortunatly I don't think that's going to change.

Men & women who are gay are adopting kids and becoming awesome parents to those kids in need (the statistics prove it). In fact, there is a statistic you will like, their kids become gay, per-capita, less than those of straight parents.
It is not an extra right... it is a human right & we are violating it.