Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

by Inquisitor 108 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Carlos_Helms

"The same tired tripe has been spewed before. Just as when intermixed racial marriages were not allowed and against the laws, 'black people' or 'Asian people' had the same rights as white people. They could marry according to their race, therefore why did they expect 'special rights'. It's such a ridiculous argument, that anyone with a single shred of intellectual integrity would be embarrassed for belching up such crap.

Claiming that marriage is the bedrock of civilization and of 'traditional values' is just as ridiculous. Marriage for far longer than it's current definition was used as a way to increase wealth and power. Women were property. Marriage wasn't for love, nor sacredness, nor any other moral reason. It was a union of convenience. Men and women had their sexual partners on the side. Oh egad! What would the bible (puke) say about such adultery?"

Sorry, "Dude"...but a half-naked 20-something in a dog-collar and women's make-up isn't going to garner a lot of respect in the real world...even today. I should listen to you because you "roar"? I don't know if you care if you're respected or not; but my experience tells me that you won't be as long as your represent yourself as a sexual object. But what do I know? You probably "get laid" more often than I do. That's important.

LOL...I think I'll refrain from any more "gay" threads. They're even further from reality than the ex-JW threads.

Carlos
BurnTheShips

I think he does a very good job of refuting a number of the arguments given on this thread in favor of homosexual marriage.
He certainly does! And gives a great deal of food for thought.
BTS
BizzyBee

a half-naked 20-something in a dog-collar and women's make-up isn't going to garner a lot of respect in the real world...even today. I should listen to you because you "roar"? I don't know if you care if you're respected or not; but my experience tells me that you won't be as long as your represent yourself as a sexual object.
Wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes........sorry, Indo-guy, I just flat-out think it is funny.......and must now admit - I don't take much of this "war" very seriously. Sorry.
Carlos, you nailed it! Oh, my aching sides!
BizzyBee

Well, I never mentioned anything about war, I think you are mixing me up with yourself.

Ummmm, refer to the title of the thread.
I do agree that poverty, sanitation, and medical care are more important issues than civil marriage. Would you be fine if the government used all monies that currently are devoted to government departments responsible for registering all marriages and all the tax breaks currently allocated to married couples and used these funds to address these much more pressing issues? I certainly would!

Absolutely. Fookin'-A! Look, this is all academic. Gay marriage will happen - maybe not this year - but soon. It's really OK. In the overall demise of any standards of civilization whatsoever in this country, it will be pretty small potatoes. I'm glad that I am in a position to sit back, away from the fray, and observe. Knock yourselves out - just watch out for those dog-collars. Those spikes can hurt!
cognizant dissident

Any thoughts?
Well, since you asked!
Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses

Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments.
May, 2004

American is entangled in the most heated battle of the culture wars to date. Many consider it a Waterloo. State supreme courts and city governments, senators and congressmen, community leaders, celebrities, and even clergy all have mounted a powerful offensive in support of gay "marriage." What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.
The author of this article starts out using very emotionally loaded language designed to provoke an emotional reaction. He speaks of demands for equal civil rights as a war and a "revision of civilization" overdramatizing the consequences of a successful change in the law. Last I checked in Canada, civilization as we know it was still in tact and doing quite well despite the legalization of gay marriage. Exaggeration with no explanation of how gay marriage will result in society's downfall. Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights

"
We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination."

There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.

The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.

I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
This sounds like a good argument except it skirts the real issue. It makes it sound like gays are treated equally because no one can marry someone of the same sex. However, it is the ability to marry someone of their own sexual preference that is being denyed them. Heterosexuals are free to marry someone of their sexual preference. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of their sexual preference. In that way they are not treated equally.
Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, "Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have." No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
Again this is a clever analogy but it is twisted. Gays are not asking to vote (marry) in another country. They are asking to vote (marry) in their own country but are being given only one candidate on the ballot! Vote (marry) heterosexual or not at all!
The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.
No, they want the same right as all heterosexuals have, to marry someone of their preference!
The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals--non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers--share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face "unequal protection" in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
Because every other unmarried citizen who are sexually involved and want to make a deep loving life time commitment to each other is permitted to. Brothers, spinsters, college roommates are not sexually involved and do not want to make a lifetime commitment to live with each other and share each other's lives. This is truly comparing apples and oranges.
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she--and they--are still covered).
This is the worst argument yet. It is make an assumption that marriage involves children. Many, many marriages do not involve children and yet they still recieve the same benefits under the law. He also makes the assumption that gay marriages do not involve children. Gay couples may have their own natural children from previous relationships or donor sperm/eggs and one parent may choose to stay home and look after the children while the other works. This is the very reason why they should enjoy the same rights in marriage. For the sake of the children!
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
This statement is blatantly false and easy to prove. Children are not inherent to heterosexual families and they are not excluded from homosexual families and that is easily proved by the thousands of childless heterosexual families and the thousands of homosexual families raising children.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sums the issue up nicely:

"Gay citizens" already have the same right to marry as anyone else--else to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.
If "summing up nicely" means equating gays with incestous, and pedophilia, the issue definitely IS discrimination. That makes as much sense as saying heterosexuals cannot get married because pedophiles and relatives cannot get married. Why should heterosexuals have special rights they don't have. If they are disappointed, too bad. Incest and pedophila and polygamy are shown to be harmful to society. Homosexual marriage has not been demonstrated to be harmful to anyone. "
They said the same thing about interracial marriage."

This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.

Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. "That’s the same thing you said about the last guy," he snaps. "Yes," the clerk replies. "We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke."

In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
The entire point of this analogy is to prove what? That heteosexual people have money and gay people are broke? Or is it really saying, "We the authorities that be, have decided that skin color differences are trivial and gender differences are enourmous. Sorry, you are flat out of luck (broke, busted). Who says sex is fundamental to marriage? Many marriages remain in tact with out couples even having sexual relations. This is just the children are fundamental to marriage argument all over again. Last I checked, gays were having sex so if that's fundamental to marriage, then they qualify.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions ("In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either."). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.
No one is trying to justify polygamous or incestuous unions. These arguments are trying to falsely equate homosexual unions with unions that are known to be harmful. Emotionally loading the argument with repulsive comparisons.
"We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want."

Columnist Ellen Goodman writes, "The state is on shaky ground when it tries to criminalize sexual relations of the consensual living arrangements of adults." In San Francisco, a giddy newly "married" lesbian celebrates, "Now we’re not second-class citizens; now we can have a loving relationship like every other married couple we know." Another opines, "Anybody who is in love and wants to spend the rest of their life together should be able to do it." [emphasis added in all]

These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same—sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do--express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
This blantanly contradicts the author's previous statement "
It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.
Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it's done all the time. Entire cottage industries have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs--from wedding cakes to honeymoons--of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.

Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone--of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference--from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.

Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
Again, more red herrings and moot points. Gays are not asking for wedding cakes, honey moons, and social approval. They are asking for those legal entitlements that heterosexual couples take for granted. I'll stop there because the rest of the article IMO is a bunch of subjective philosophizing on what constitutes valid social institutions such as marriage, family. It is so subject to personal moralizing that it is and should be irrelevant to a discussion of the law. The bottome line is your definition of family and marriage can be anything you want it to be, but under the law it should be the same for everybody, two people who choose to make a commitment to care for each other, share their lives, whether that includes sex and children is their business, and each other's possessions. If heterosexual couples receive tax breaks under the laws, then so should homosexual couples. Cog
cognizant dissident

In the overall demise of civilizations standards, it won't be any potatoes at all. It has still not been demonstrated how gay marriage will contrbute to the demise of civilization. Many believe that equalizing the playing field contributes to societies upward evolution. Some might consider it "self-evident" that bigotry and prejudice against minorities contributes to the downward spiral of civilization.
Personally, I think it will be pollution that does us all in! The marriage of gays and heterosexuals is totally irrrelevant to me. However, I do see bigotry as an insidious evil in society that can and has led to the grossest of human rights abuses. That's why I argue so vehemently against it when I see it in even it's subtlest disguises. It is more dangerous then, as people often do not see it for what it is. The "closeted" bigot is much more dangeous than the most "out there" homophobe as they can carry out their little discriminations and exclusions often undetected by others.
Cog
Indo_Dude

Carlos: I'm not sure where you get your information. Maybe it's wishful thinking; but the majority determines the "rights" of the minority. Always has. The majority does what IT feels is the right thing to do - and individual "rights" follow.
Wrong. It's called the Constitution. When laws that have passed either via legislative process or voter mandate they get over-ridden by the Supreme Court. Trying to amend the Constitution doesn't take just a majority, but rather an exhaustive, lengthy, full vetting that needs overwhelming support to enact.
Carlos: Admittedly, the vocal homosexual minority is gaining some political ground on a sinking ship that they (along with others) helped poke holes in; but in the long-run, what's the difference? All you can do now is try and enjoy the ride.
LMAO! What will bring America down as a sinking ship first? Gay marriage by those darned homos? Or the war in Iraq that was started and lost via the bible lovin super Christian Bush, along with all of his fundy supporters that hate gays, but love killing brown people in far off place?
Carlos: History shows countless examples of what deteriorating cultures "allow." The fall is never as painful as the landing...and the eventual backlash is more painful yet (see: pink triangle).
Just when I don't think you can come up with any more ridiculous garbage you spout that. Hitler killed gay people because of gay rights? He then killed Jews because the Jews wanted rights too then. And Jehovah's Witnesses (see: purple triangle). You just grouped yourself in with the gay people. You admit that it is ok if you were killed, since you were a Jehovah's Witness. After all the JWs pushed for their rights to be enforced. I guess that's the backlash you are talking about then.
Indo_Dude

Carlos: Sorry, "Dude"...but a half-naked 20-something in a dog-collar and women's make-up isn't going to garner a lot of respect in the real world...even today. I should listen to you because you "roar"? I don't know if you care if you're respected or not; but my experience tells me that you won't be as long as your represent yourself as a sexual object. But what do I know?
I guess your own personal history repeats itself doesn't it? Your judgmental attitude is so pervasive it's astonishing. What I posted about the history of marriage is quite true. But you shouldn't take my word for it, you should go research it for yourself. Stop being a patsy, and believing whatever you are told, even if you do find the outside veneer or packaging to your liking. Also, respect needs to be earned. Do you really think I care what complete strangers think? Or homophobes? Or judgmental, small minded people looking for easy answers? I got out of the JWs and that mindset of always being concerned with what strangers think of me based on if I had an unwashed car in service, or if a 'worldly' neighbor saw me talk to a girl alone, or if I was wearing modest clothing. Start living your life based on what is important to you, not what some random stranger down the street may or may not think.
Carlos: You probably "get laid" more often than I do. That's important.
That's probably a given. In fact, a have a fully naked guy waiting for me in bed that needs my attention. Have a wonderful evening.
freydi

"To say two men who live together and engage in sex can be married renders the idea and ideal of marriage meaningless. The court may declare it, but it cannot redefine an institution that nature and nature's God have already defined.

As they say in Texas, you can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it's still a pig.

"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," Christ taught. Through the Old Testament and into the epistles of St. Paul, homosexual sodomy is an abomination leading to personal destruction and damnation, one of the five sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. How, then, can four judges declare it to be integral to the sacrament of marriage?

Well, we don't believe all that rot, comes the reply."

Post-Christian America
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Friday, May 23, 2008
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=65070
BizzyBee

In fact, a have a fully naked guy waiting for me in bed that needs my attention.
Thank you. As a California voter, this has clarified the issues for me.

Gay Marriage - The War for Equality

Share this