Great.  At least they’re out of the closet in saying that their real objection is religious in nature.

What DOF said.

Just another example of how the stupidity of US politicians never cease to amaze me.

Stupidity is just as much a part of the human condition as gayness, Webs.  Anywhere you travel, you’ll find it.

Though I suspect a higher percentage of people are stupid than gay.

decrepitoldfool, I couldn’t agree with you more. My feeling is that the real problem with this entire debate is that those who oppose gay marriage pretend that the arguments against it are social ("marriage will be destroyed") and scientific ("gays can’t raise children") when in fact it boils down to religion. It is all because they believe that “God” said that being gay is wrong.

Consequently, there is no way to engage in an informed debate about these issues because it isn’t about information, science, or anything else—in the end, it is all about religion. It boils down to a matter of faith.

Consequently, there is no way to engage in an informed debate about these issues because it isn’t about information, science, or anything else—in the end, it is all about religion. It boils down to a matter of faith.

Yup. It’s just like the whack-a-mole game of debating ID.

It boils down to a matter of faith.

That is just false.  There are real and legitimate arguments against gay marriage that rely upon valid studies.  The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

Just another example of how the stupidity of US politicians never cease to amaze me.

Well, it is a representative democracy.

That is just false.  There are real and legitimate arguments against gay marriage that rely upon valid studies.

This is a half-truth.

It’s a polarizing issue with one side considering gay marriage as a Right Thing to do and the other rejecting it. On the other hand, regardless of the arguments raised in disfavor of gay marriage, the detractors are largely driven by religious or visceral motivations.

Nobody claims that doing the right thing is free from consequences, some undesired. The question is, do the detractors work with the other side or do they stonewall?

The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

And similar to the ID debate, if the proponents of gay marriage would conclusively answer these arguments, the detractors would concede? Or would they raise other arguments, ad nauseam? Assuming these arguments haven’t already been answered and the other side refuses to acknowledge it…

I have a problem with politicians dragging religion into that debate. Other than staying bought in the face of adversity, exposing ulterior motives is at least the most honest thing the lower form of life we call politician is capable of. What they are saying is that they wear the most inpenetrable blinders known to man and they can’t be swayed by any rational argument.

Just my $0.02…

There are real and legitimate arguments against gay marriage that rely upon valid studies.  The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

Didn’t we just go through this in another thread?

There are no legitimate issues with gay marriage. I’ve seen your points and I’m sorry, but they’re bullshit. Your studies are meaningless, unless you want to start telling other people they can’t get married because of some study. (ex. A study that indicated that marriages below a certain income level are more likely to end in divorce, or Baptist parents are more likely to abuse they’re children.) (Both examples made up to make a point. Don’t go asking for me to prove my assertations.)

The only real objection to gay marriage is a moral one based on religious beliefs.

Well, and maybe a linguistic one as well, but it is a living language so we can adjust the literal meaning of the word without a complete breakdown of society.

There are no legitimate issues with gay marriage. I’ve seen your points and I’m sorry, but they’re bullshit.

To sort of repeat myself, you have to make a distinction between what motivates a person to reject gay marriage and the arguments they raise in opposition.

I haven’t followed the other thread and reserve judgement about any points raised. Whether they are bullshit or not, the deeper issue is whether rebutting any and all arguments raised in opposition will change the other’s mind. I don’t see any room for that.

I also don’t see any room for modifying my position. I’m in favor of rewarding committed couples, regardless of gender. It doesn’t matter to me if implementing such is a big, fat non-event (other than the apoplexy of Catholics and other Christians) or would result in major societal pain. It’s either the right thing to do or not. If it is, then any other concerns are simply appeals to consequences, i.e. fallacies. The world is so simple when you cut through the crap.

That is just false.  There are real and legitimate arguments against gay marriage that rely upon valid studies.  The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

Who did these studies? What was their sample group? How long did the study last. Who conducted them? That last one might not seem important but if it was Reisman or Cameron, I think we can safely disregard them.

you have to make a distinction between what motivates a person to reject gay marriage and the arguments they raise in opposition.

From what I’ve seen; the motivations for rejecting gay marriage have universally been based upon ignorance or religious objections and the arguments are bullshit.  Except for those people who admit that their reason for not wanting gay marriage is based upon religion the arguments against gay marriage are invariably based upon Big Lie propoganda techniques.

I think if any Oz politician openly made statements such as above, there’d be lotsa pointing, elbowing and snickering.

The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

You said it.

There are real and legitimate arguments against gay marriage that rely upon valid studies.

APART FROM ‘Think of the children’, what? Studies may show male couples are the most likely to split.  Is the likelyhood of cheating now what we base access to marriage on?

The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

Consigliere, we’ve been through this and frankly, I don’t have a dog in this race. I don’t conduct this kind of research (though I have conducted research on human sexuality) and I am quite capable of evaluating research without wearing blinders. I don’t care which side “wins” from a scientific perspective.

My position isn’t an especially moral one. My point is simply that those who want to ban gay marriage have made their argument on very weak quasi-scientific grounds while in reality, their objections are religious—that gay marriage should be banned because homosexuality is against God’s laws. This is a lot like arguing ID.

As I’ve said before, show me the scientfic evidence that homosexuality is a choice (there IS none). Or at least state openly that this is a moral-religious issue—these politicians have said so.

Shelley: My position isn’t an especially moral one. My point is simply that those who want to ban gay marriage have made their argument on very weak quasi-scientific grounds while in reality, their objections are religious—that gay marriage should be banned because homosexuality is against God’s laws. This is a lot like arguing ID.

Exactly.
There’s a well-known saying in Oz: You can’t educate a mug = a mug is a fuckwit, therfore, don’t waste your time ... he’s encapsulated in his Roaming Catholisism and its skydaddie concepts.

Consi: The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

Haha. Pot & kettle stuff, surely.

That is just false.  There are real and legitimate arguments against gay marriage that rely upon valid studies.  The fact that you either can’t see or refuse to acknowledge the other side’s position is indicative of the blinders that you choose to wear.

Studies?  Are these the same ‘legitimate studies’ that said that blacks were intellectually inferior?  If you’re not going to make a rule that says you can’t get married if you don’t have X income or above, or you can’t get married if your SAT scores are below a certain amount, or you can’t get married if you have a history of violence, or a criminal record, or ever smoked pot, or aren’t a member of a church, or aren’t active in the community, or if you generally just don’t like people, then what in the hell does gender have to do with it?  Of all the threats to the family unit, considering all the beaten wifes, children abused by their own parents, drug addicted children of uncaring parents, divorced parents with children bouncing back and forth between two homes after custody fights where the children are reduced to possessions instead of people..... after all that, you think two parents of the same sex is a threat to the family?

What drugs are you on, cuz it must be what congress is smoking....

Like Curiouser said it IS a representative democracy and that is what is scariest of all to me. If these idiot politicians feel thay have to talk like this in order to get elected (and they do), whether they actually believe it or not (and I don’t believe that they all believe it) then the electorate is the scarry component of our system.

Okay, even taking the huge leap and saying that there are at least some legitimate concerns or reasons to debate the effects on children of having gay parents, one extremely important thing needs to be said.

Raising children and getting married are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUCKING TOPICS!

Reminds me of something my wife said to me once. “You can’t wear your grey suit, Doctor Who is coming on.”

Of course she was asleep at the time. I wonder what Consi’s excuse is.......

Studies?  Are these the same ‘legitimate studies’ that said that…

And there lies another rub. There’s a good chance that any allegedly valid argument raised in opposition of gay marriage also applies to a subset of hetero marriages. And even though there are 100% more hetero marriages than gay ones, those opposing gay marriage gleefully open that Pandora’s Box…

The gay marriage debate closely mirrors the debat over interracial marriage.

Same old bigotry.

Shelley, am not ignoring the thread, just don’t have time for the uber post that is required to respond adequately.  Until then.

To me, the question is do the people of the United States want to be tolerant and open or intolerant and closed?  Do you believe in limited government and freedom or do you believe in government control and cultural oppression?

I’ve been perusing an interesting book, How the Homosexuals Saved Civilization.  It argues that gays constitute a de facto immigrant group.  History teaches us that every immigrant group gets fucked over by the larger culture for some period of time, until finally enough blending takes place for the immigrants to not seem so icky and scary with their weird customs, language and behavior.

The Government of the United States should never have gotten involved in what constitutes an acceptable marriage.  The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights ought to have been followed from the beginning instead of being perverted by the largely Protestant background of the courts and legislatures in power when the question has come up.  Government intruded into religion, if marriage is religious in nature.  Government intruded into peaceful assembly, if you consider whom you spend time with to be such, whether you use it to redress grievances together or not.  Mormons and Mohammedans and everyone else ought not to be forbidden polygamy if that is acceptable to those directly involved.  It is not the business of government.  Laws against miscegenation have disappeared at long last.  If government is to be fair to all, it should not care what the color of your skin is or the shape of your genitals.  Only if the state encourages, as it does in the United States, economic benefit should government be involved, and that only as the guarantor of contracts that it is for any legal relationship.  A government that serves liberty cannot be used as a bullying big brother to repress deviations from the nebulous norm.

Gays should not have to argue for the right to marry.  Those opposed should have to argue for why they should be allowed to prevent gays from exercising that right.
/rant

As an aside, I’d just like to mention that I went to junior high and high school with Rep. Gingrey’s daughter.  She was, as I recall, pretty hot and reputedly quite a party goer, though my own social isolation colored my perceptions of her, no doubt.  Her father, unlike many congresscritters, is not a lawyer by trade but a Catholic anti-abortion gynecologist.  I understand she is like an office manager for him, though I don’t know how much of his politics she embraces.  She seemed so nice, long ago…

Mormons and Mohammedans and everyone else ought not to be forbidden polygamy if that is acceptable to those directly involved.

Yes and no.

On the one hand, what mentally competent, consenting, and uncoerced adults do between themselves should be their own business.

Since you mention the Mormons, I have my doubts that these preconditions are universally met and women (or sometimes underage girls, as I recall from news reports) are not coerced into exploitative relationships. I have an even harder time with the Muslim culture(s). Of course, arranged “traditional” marriages are suspect, too.

In that respect, gay marriages would be the least suspect ones - I have a hard time to conceive of gays marrying under duress.