Same-sex marriage approved by the state of New York.

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying but if you are saying that giving equal treatment in regard to marriage means that gays that marry will act more "DOUCHY" and annoying I think hardly qualifies as a rational argument for why they shouldn't be.

There are lots of things I find DOUCHY and annoying, I find Desperate Housewives to be very annoying (a show about the travails of heterosexual marriage) yet I am not going to say that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry on that basis.

 

yes, and i saw the debate; good answer by Al, but while he's right about civil rights per se, i think he's wrong to include gay marriage in the same category as the rights to vote, free assembly, speech, etc. IMO, marriage is a privilege, not a right, at least in the constitutional sense. further, nothing has prevented gay men and women from getting married (albeit to a person of the opposite sex), so their rights are no more or less constrained than the rest of the population, who cannot marry 1st cousins, or have more than one spouse at a time, etc.

that said, i support gay marriage simply because there's no valid reason i can think of for the state (as opposed to a religious denomination) to restrict it, and because i think society as a whole benefits from marriage, commitment, and family (i support gay/single parent adoption).

and since this is a privilege, not a right, (and a new one at that), and there is no national consensus, i think this is an issue better left to the states and their legislatures.

 

Amen! Losers in New York think government shouldn't tell people of the same gender who they can marry and have sex with but they are perfectly fine telling them they can't fight!

 

It is not a "privilege" to be treated equally under the law. It is a right.

Marriage is not only a legal status; it is an expression of commitment to the person one loves. Whether this is enshrined in law or not, we accept it as a society to be true. Heterosexuals have the legal right to marry the person they love; in most cases, gays still do not. Just like gays do not currently enjoy universal protections against discrimination in employment, adoption or housing and like they recently did not enjoy protections against being discriminated against at the hospital (trying to visit a sick or dying life partner) or in the military until Obama all too recently rectified those injustices.

This is a fight for equality, for the ideal that all men (and women) are created equal and for the idea that all men (and women) enjoy inalienable rights including the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Gays are not treated equally in our society. They should be and they will be, but they are not now. It won't be very long at all before those who "stood in the doorways and blocked up the halls" on this will be forced to admit recent wrongs and apologize for past shameful stances. Obama, because of his stance on gay marriage, will be one of them, though his track record on gay rights has been, on balance, stellar.

To turn this movement toward basic equality into a semantic argument in order to convey a civil rights issue (or rather several) to the states belies a rapidly eroding support for gay rights from you, basso. This is in no way surprising.

 

He's right in the sense that it is an unfair systematic exclusion of a group of people.

State/legal recognition is really the only tangible benefit to marriage. So yes, it is a huge constraint on gay couples. Being able to marry someone you don't want to marry isn't really all that much help (I can't believe you even suggested that as some kind of concession to gay rights). By the way, you can marry your 1st cousin in several states! Most of whom don't allow gay marriage, ironically.

We determine what is and is not a right. If I had to bet on it, I'd say we're going to end up making this a right.

"National consensus" and "leave it to the states to decide" is such bullpuckey. Sorry, but the backwards ass states that want to discriminate are inevitably going to be dragged, kicking-and-screaming, into the 21st century. Just as it has always been. That's the downside of being part of the union, you're going to have to get with the program once in a while to keep reaping the benefits of statehood (and I say that in a very literal manner, as the majority of the anti-gay marriage states take far more than they give back).

If you can't find a better reason *to* support equal treatment of all citizens under the law than "I can't think of a reason *not* to be for it", then you're not trying hard enough. Your support for marriage equality rings hollow when you say things like this, and playing the "states rights" card comes off as some half-hearted attempt at justifying that discrimination.

 

not at all, it merely means that one can approach the issue from many different vantage points and end up in the same place. i appreciate your passion, but emotionally appealing as it may be, i prefer a more intellectually rigorous approach.

rather than demand ideological purity, the issue would be better served by celebrating its diversity of support across the political spectrum.

 

You mean the diversity across the political spectrum that meant 3 courageous Republicans had to break ranks with an unforgiving, strictly anti-gay rights party? The same party that tried to pass a Constitutional amendment banning forever gay marriage? The same party that led the charge on DOMA and resisted, as a bloc, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell? Yes, let us celebrate that wonderful diversity of support across the political spectrum.

This is why we have to call it a day, basso, and for good. Even if you hadn't lost me at the laughable claim that you would like to have more "intellectual rigor" in, well, anything. We just really shouldn't talk politics. I've resolved not to post here if I'm going to get bent out of shape over it and conversing in any way with a patently dishonest debater is a guaranteed ticket to Madville.

 

Batman Jones and basso make a lovely couple.

 

i'm not sure how you can say that the GOP resisted as a bloc repealing DADT, since no such thing happened. that said, the GOP record on gay rights generally is clearly not good, but it's far less cynical than the DEM record, which is forever "evolving", just never to a place where those rights are granted.

and yes, i'm using the word "rights" in this context to include gay marriage, although the latter is not a right (in my view).

 

Not anymore. We just broke up.

 

Yes thats pretty much it, the same way I'm looking at it. Maybe you're seeing it as "intolerance" leading to restriction of freedom. Thats NOT it.

Really I'm only being half serious taking a "Hangout" approach to this instead of a "D&D" approach. Yes if the WORST thing that happens is people being "douchy" and they'll get more airtime in the media, then that means the gay issue isnt that big a concern.

There's an SNL Fred Armison as Obama State of the Union clip where he says

“In the months ahead I plan to ask Congress for legislation ending the ban on gays in the military. This in itself will create 30,000 jobs in our armed forces, as well as two new series on Bravo.” *congressional applause*​

I'm saying its a 2 part thing - the provided liberties, and then the following assimilation of it into society. Yes the HARD part is to grant it in the FIRST place. The ensuing part after that is up to us both as a society and individually to work out.

 

I can solve that for you in two words: Don't hate.

It's that simple. No further effort or action is required.

 

For more badly executed humor purposes, this is what I hope we don't get too much of

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FxDJAeABxNU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VZDeAMNIXg8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



My admitted concern is, like the atheist position on religion, that it all seems like more slowly but surely stripping away of straight male standard cuz the order of "man" has brought upon all the evil and lack of liberties in the FIRST place. Straight man is completely culpable in holding society back so straight man needs to get his ignorant act together so peace can be had in the world.

If religion is completely ON-limits to strike down, why not males? I champion every cause toward liberty, but I'm not going to pretend that element doesnt exist in it.

 

fixed, or maybe just bent...

 

i'm cool with it.

 

The question of "right" versus "privilege" is an interesting one but one in terms of that we have been arguing whether government recognizes gay marriage by licensing them. On the one hand I can see the fact that the government has to license them that would mean it is a privilege instead of a right but on the other hand there are rights, such as voting, that the government also confers since you have to register to vote.

Also while "marriage" isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution the institution of marriage long long predates the Constitution and was recognized as something that is inherent to almost all human societies. In that case it is more like a right.

Anyway right or privilege I think your approach is good and in general I think you've brought up some pretty substantive points in this thread.

 

I see what you mean. I agree that societal acceptance is a harder and evolving issue but while that is important I think there are other reasons besides just widespread societal acceptance why gay marriage should be legalized.

Considering there are people that are still racist shows that while Civil Rights legally succeeding we are not at universal societal acceptance of Civil Rights. At the same time in the interests of personal and religious freedom I think people and churches should be free to not accept gay marriage provided the follow the law.