'Opposition to gay marriage' cost contestant Miss USA title

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I'd respectfully suggest that a massive abortion rate for decades has a significant role to play in causing the birth rate decline and subsequent population difficulties.

The state places significance on the heterosexual family for social reasons.I see no reason why that should be changed.

Abortion=/=gay marriage. You can't just dump all such things into a big pile called "liberal laws" and say they're all bad. The state can place any significance they want but if someone is gay they're gay and Brian Cowen isn't going to legislate them out of it. They're not going to be having children regardless of the law and it's wrong to try to force them to

If someone chooses to be celibate they also will never have children. Should we legally require people to have regular sex? (Now that's a law I'd support )

elekid

prinz wrote: »

The state places significance on the heterosexual family for social reasons.I see no reason why that should be changed.

Abortion is a completely seperate issue. What exactly would be the negative effects on society at large if I married my boyfriend tomorrow? I honestly don't see how giving equal rights to committed same-sex couples would in any way affect heterosexual couples. Is it just the use of the word "marriage" that people have an issue with?

It's easy not to see reasons for change when you can rest comfortable in the knowledge that you have the rights that you're happy to see denied to others.

prinz

Mostly because it would require an amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann to remove the status of the heterosexual couple as the primary 'family' of the state, and as Jakkass pointed out that would open the floodgate for pretty much any configuration of partners/multiple partners then looking for equal rights under the Constitution, with all inherent knock-on effects on the social fabric of society.

You could then have 6 'partners' for example engaging in a multiple 'marriage' and the kind of cult/ Waco scenario is possible, with equal rights as a family, and constitutional protection. If two men can 'marry' then why not two men and a woman? Etc etc etc. Pandora's Box.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Abortion=/=gay marriage. You can't just dump all such things into a big pile called "liberal laws" and say they're all bad. The state can place any significance they want but if someone is gay they're gay and Brian Cowen isn't going to legislate them out of it. They're not going to be having children regardless of the law and it's wrong to try to force them to

If someone chooses to be celibate they also will never have children. Should we legally require people to have regular sex? (Now that's a law I'd support )

You see you just proved the point.The state cannot place any significance on any family unit, when more than one is legalised and constitutionally valid. Nobody is trying to legislate anyone 'out of it'.

And yes, under the constitutional protection awarded to married couples and the family, there'd be no possibility of then refusing homosexual couples, polygamist set-ups etc., the right to adopt, use surrogates, use IVF etc., to have children, which leads to social problems in the future as well.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Mostly because it would require an amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann to remove the status of the heterosexual couple as the primary 'family' of the state, and as Jakkass pointed out that would open the floodgate for pretty much any configuration of partners/multiple partners then looking for equal rights under the Constitution, with all inherent knock-on effects on the social fabric of society.

You could then have 6 'partners' for example engaging in a multiple 'marriage' and the kind of cult/ Waco scenario is possible, with equal rights as a family, and constitutional protection. If two men can 'marry' then why not two men and a woman? Etc etc etc. Pandora's Box.

Those are the same kind of arguments that were used against inter racial marriage in the past. They were bullcrap then and they're bullcrap now. Something should be kept illegal if it is bad, not if you think that legalising it might force you to maybe legalise something else at some point in the future or could maybe possibly lead to something bad if it's not done properly. There are billions of things that can lead to other bad things that aren't made illegal, like how legalising driving could lead to drink driving. We are intelligent human beings and are capable of judging each case on its own merits. Any law can be abused but that is an argument for responsible law making, not keeping things illegal even though there's nothing wrong with them in themselves

Marriage has already changed many times in history anyway, for example mixed marriages used to be frowned on but not anymore. You didn't see anyone coming out of the woodwork saying "if you let a catholic marry a protestant I have to be allowed marry this cow". What you're doing there is called the slippery slope logical fallacy which goes as follows:

If A happens, then by a gradual series of small steps through B, C,…, X, Y, eventually Z will happen, too.
Z should not happen.
Therefore, A should not happen, either.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

And yes, under the constitutional protection awarded to married couples and the family, there'd be no possibility of then refusing homosexual couples, polygamist set-ups etc., the right to adopt, use surrogates, use IVF etc., to have children, which leads to social problems in the future as well.

The part I crossed out is not true in any way, shape or form because if gay marriage was legal polygamy would still be illegal. And I see nothing wrong with allowing gay couples to adopt. In fact there are gay couples out there who would do a hell of a better job than a lot of heterosexual couples

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The part I crossed out is not true in any way, shape or form because if gay marriage was legal polygamy would still be illegal. And I see nothing wrong with allowing gay couples to adopt. In fact there are gay couples out there who would do a hell of a better job than a lot of heterosexual couples

On what basis could polygamy be kept illegal...... or would homosexual married couples then go on to deny the right of 'marriage' between 3 people? All this talk of equal rights etc., sounds more like equal if it suits me.Two men married, Two women married......... why not three men married?

Either there is a constitutional protection of the family unit, and who makes up that, as promoted by the state or there isn't.

JC 2K3

There shouldn't be.

The vast, vast majority of people are going to be monogamous and heterosexual, what's the point of "protecting" this in the constitution?

dlofnep

prinz wrote: »

why not three men married?

Sounds like the title of a Movie!

prinz

JC 2K3 wrote: »

There shouldn't be.

The vast, vast majority of people are going to be monogamous and heterosexual, what's the point of "protecting" this in the constitution?

Things that are beneficial to society are generally enshrined in the Constitution. The vast majority of people are going to vote (well used to anyway ) so what's the point in protecting the right to vote........

JC 2K3

But how is the denial of the right to marry to homosexuals beneficial to society?

It's be different if people were likely to abandon their heterosexuality were it legal, but they're not, that's my point.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

On what basis could polygamy be kept illegal...... or would homosexual married couples then go on to deny the right of 'marriage' between 3 people? All this talk of equal rights etc., sounds more like equal if it suits me.Two men married, Two women married......... why not three men married?

Either there is a constitutional protection of the family unit, and who makes up that, as promoted by the state or there isn't.

Because our society decides what laws it wants and what laws it doesn't. Some societies already accept polygamy and some don't. Currently the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't support polygamy so it wouldn't pass in a referendum.

And besides that, it wouldn't matter if there were 15 people in the marriage, it's still nothing to do with you. If 15 people want to get married to each other I don't see why they should be prevented. That doesn't necessarily make them bad parents any more than a one man one woman marriage would make them good parents. Societies evolve, unless you get your morals from a bronze age fairy story

prinz

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But how is the denial of the right to marry to homosexuals beneficial to society?

It's be different if people were likely to abandon their heterosexuality were it legal, but they're not, that's my point.

In order to confer that right, many constitutional changes would have be enacted first, which would lead to the removal of the protection of the heterosexual married family unit - shown to be the most stable building block of society. When you start chipping away at that block, eventually it will crumble.

Like Jakkass has said, Civil unions, whatever no problem. Do that. Not an issue. The issue stems from the constitutional and state conferred status of a 'marriage' and a family.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

In order to confer that right, many constitutional changes would have be enacted first, which would lead to the removal of the protection of the heterosexual married family unit - shown to be the most stable building block of society. When you start chipping away at that block, eventually it will crumble.

Like Jakkass has said, Civil unions, whatever no problem. Do that. Not an issue. The issue stems from the constitutional and state conferred status of a 'marriage' and a family.

So would you object to polygamous civil unions? And if you would, what makes you think that if you tack the label marriage on it then you have to allow every type of marriage but the same does not apply to civil unions?

What aspects of marriage to you object to gay people having exactly that don't apply to civil unions? And remember we're talking about gay people getting married and not polygamous unions.

Edit: also should we outlaw any form of family except the one "that's shown to be the most stable"? Should the children of single mothers be taken away from them and put into families with married parents?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because our society decides what laws it wants and what laws it doesn't. Some societies already accept polygamy and some don't. Currently the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't support polygamy so it wouldn't pass in a referendum.

And the vast majority of states in the U.S. have rejected the right to marriage for homosexuals, so back to the original point of the thread why should someone be punished for expressing a majority view?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And besides that, it wouldn't matter if there were 15 people in the marriage, it's still nothing to do with you. If 15 people want to get married to each other I don't see why they should be prevented. That doesn't necessarily make them bad parents any more than a one man one woman marriage would make them good parents.

Regardless of the consequences? Great forward thinking there.It has to do with me, because it is a social issue. it has to do with everyone.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Societies evolve, unless you get your morals from a bronze age fairy story

Yes they do, and they evolved to give the heterosexual marriage preference. Homosexuality etc. was widespread in ancient times and societies so that point is baseless, completely.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So would you object to polygamous civil unions? And if you would, what makes you think that if you tack the label marriage on it then you have to allow every type of marriage but the same does not apply to civil unions?

Possibly not. There is however big legal differences between civil unions and marriages.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

And the vast majority of states in the U.S. have rejected the right to marriage for homosexuals, so back to the original point of the thread why should someone be punished for expressing a majority view?

Well a few hundreds years ago the majority view was that slavery was ok but that doesn't mean it was. Your view here is imposing your morals on someone else when the action that they want to be allowed to do has no effect on anyone but the people involved. When two men get married no one is hurt, there is no victim. And if a crime has no victim then why the hell is it a crime?

prinz wrote: »

Regardless of the consequences? Great forward thinking there.It has to do with me, because it is a social issue. it has to do with everyone.

What consequences? You are assuming that gay people or polygamous people will be bad parents and that is not necessarily the case. Being gay does not make you a bad parent any more than being heterosexual makes you a good one. If a gay couple adopted a child and they abused it it could be taken off them the same as any couple but to assume that gay couples are somehow inherently inferior to straight ones is just bigotry

prinz wrote: »

Yes they do, and they evolved to give the heterosexual marriage preference. Homosexuality etc. was widespread in ancient times and societies so that point is baseless, completely.

What so because they have not yet evolved to allow gay marriage they never can? Do you understand what evolution is?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Possibly not. There is however big legal differences between civil unions and marriages.

Such as......

And which of these differences do you object to gay couples having and why?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Such as......

And which of these differences do you object to gay couples having and why?

Constitutional equivalence

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Constitutional equivalence

And which of these differences do you object to gay couples having and why?


edit:I'd like a reason that can't be applied to any non-standard family btw, such as single parents

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What so because they have not yet evolved to allow gay marriage they never can? Do you understand what evolution is?

Evolution works forward to find the best way.............


it doesn't work backwards to return to the situation we came from.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well a few hundreds years ago the majority view was that slavery was ok but that doesn't mean it was. Your view here is imposing your morals on someone else when the action that they want to be allowed to do has no effect on anyone but the people involved.

So now majority does not in fact rule.... and society should pander to accommodate all minorities for whatever they like?

It has an effect on society, and the social structure. But we're going in circles here.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Evolution works forward to find the best way.............


it doesn't work backwards to return to the situation we came from.

Gay marriage was never allowed so we wouldn't be going back to anything. And you've shown a lack of understanding of evolution there. There is no guiding force behind it, the whole point is it randomly tries out now things to see if they work.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Gay marriage was never allowed so we wouldn't be going back to anything. And you've shown a lack of understanding of evolution there. There is no guiding force behind it, the whole point is it randomly tries out now things to see if they work.

How do you know what happened before marriage between a man and a woman evolved? Is it noted somewhere that gay marriage was never allowed, ever?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So now majority does not in fact rule.... and society should pander to accommodate all minorities for whatever they like?

It has an effect on society, and the social structure. But we're going in circles here.

No the majority does not rule when it's none of their business. What two people I've never met want to do with their lives is nothing to do with me. We're not talking about some hypothetical situation here, gay marriage has been legal in Canada for years and the only effect on society has been that now people of the same sex are allowed get married and they've generally shown themselves to be good parents. All your horror stories about society collapsing have already been proven wrong

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

How do you know what happened before marriage between a man and a woman evolved? Is it noted somewhere that gay marriage was never allowed, ever?

Maybe it was, I don't know but that's irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference to what I was saying if it was allowed somewhere, sometime. You just latched onto one tiny detail of my post and ignored the major point I was making, that point being:you've shown a lack of understanding of evolution there. There is no guiding force behind it, the whole point is it randomly tries out now things to see if they work.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No the majority does not rule when it's none of their business. What two people I've never met want to do with their lives is nothing to do with me. We're not talking about some hypothetical situation here, gay marriage has been legal in Canada for years and the only effect on society has been that now people of the same sex are allowed get married and they've generally shown themselves to be good parents. All your horror stories about society collapsing have already been proven wrong

:pac: Such an understanding of politics and social responsibility.

You might want to check out the research and studies done in Scandinavia, which show homosexual 'marriages' to be much more instable compared to heterosexual marriages, interestingly with lesbian marriages twice as likely to end in separation as gay male marriages, and almost three times as likely to separate as heterosexual marriages. And that instability in the home in the majority of cases leads to future social problems.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Maybe it was, I don't know but that's irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference to what I was saying if it was allowed somewhere, sometime. You just latched onto one tiny detail of my post and ignored the major point I was making, that point being:you've shown a lack of understanding of evolution there. There is no guiding force behind it, the whole point is it randomly tries out now things to see if they work.

So as heterosexual marriages have survived in almost all societies the world over as preferred family unit, who is to say homosexual marriages have not already been tried, shown not to work, and thereafter discouraged.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

:pac: Such an understanding of politics and social responsibility.

You might want to check out the research and studies done in Scandinavia, which show homosexual 'marriages' to be much more instable compared to heterosexual marriages, interestingly with lesbian marriages twice as likely to end in separation as gay male marriages, and almost three times as likely to separate as heterosexual marriages. And that instability in the home in the majority of cases leads to future social problems.

Right so because some gay people have shown themselves to be bad parents we should assume that all gay people are bad parents and make it illegal for them to adopt, which is what you really have a problem with and not marriage itself.

That, my friend, is called bigotry and the reason we have equality legislation to prevent such laws being passed.

Also, I asked you for a reason that can't be applied to single parents but I'm afraid that exactly the same logic could be used to outlaw single parents and have their children taken away.

It could also apply to parents in poor areas, that has been shown to cause social problems.

And families where the father is away on business a lot can cause problems.

And families where a parent has a serious illness and needs constant attention from the spouse can cause problems.

Why should all these "non-ideal" family units be allowed but not gay ones?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so because some gay people have shown themselves to be bad parents we should assume that all gay people are bad parents and make it illegal for them to adopt, which is what you really have a problem with and not marriage itself.

That, my friend, is called bigotry and the reason we have equality legislation to prevent such laws being passed.

Also, I asked you for a reason that can't be applied to single parents but I'm afraid that exactly the same logic could be used to outlaw single parents and have their children taken away.

It could also apply to parents in poor areas, that has been shown to cause social problems.

And families where the father is away on business a lot can cause problems.

And families where a parent has a serious illness and needs constant attention from the spouse can cause problems.

Why should all these "non-ideal" family units be allowed but not gay ones?

So what exactly was your Canada reference? Once again, only when it suits you is it?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So as heterosexual marriages have survived in almost all societies the world over as preferred family unit, who is to say homosexual marriages have not already been tried, shown not to work, and thereafter discouraged.

And who's to say it has? That's a ridiculous line of argument because it's nothing but wild speculation. Also, the marriage success rate in Ireland was fantastic back in the day because divorce wasn't an option. Women stayed in abusive relationships because they had to. As soon as people were given the freedom to end their marriages the failure rate shot right up

thelordofcheese

I really can't believe that people are still trying to dress up their denial of rights to a group of people as some kind of moral crusade to preserve the fabric of society.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And who's to say it has? That's a ridiculous line of argument because it's nothing but wild speculation

Well you said it hadn't so.........good for the gander,good for the goose.

And it's no more ridiculous than saying........ it hasn't been tried before, we should try it now...............which was the gist of your 'evolution of marriage' argument was it not?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So what exactly was your Canada reference? Once again, only when it suits you is it?

My Canada reference was that gay marriage is allowed and while not all gay marriages have been successful, many of them have and they are raising perfectly healthy children. So you want to deny thousands of perfectly good parents the right to raise a child because other people who fall into the same category as them would be bad parents. And that is bigotry

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

And it's no more ridiculous than saying........ it hasn't been tried before, we should try it now...............which was the gist of your 'evolution of marriage' argument was it not?

That actually wasn't my point at all, it has been tried before in Canada and it has been a success. My evolution of marriage point was to counter you saying "if you allow gay marriage you have to allow polygamy". I said that marriage has not been fixed throughout history, it has changed many times and no one has felt the need to legalise polygamy so one further change isn't that big a deal and won't suddenly result in massive orgy marriages

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That actually wasn't my point, it has been tried before in Canada and it has been a success.

And has been tried in Scandinavian countries and it has been shown to result in more social difficulties.

Either way, got stuff to do now.Toodles.

JC 2K3

I'd really love to read these studies....

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

And has been tried in Scandinavian countries and it has been shown to result in more social difficulties.

Well I'm living in Scandinavia and they seem to be doing just fine. Anything can cause social difficulties in the wrong hands but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. There are millions of drivers in Ireland and a small percentage of them drink drive. That doesn't mean we should make driving illegal for the majority who are responsible about it.

And in the same way, the majority of gay people would make good parents so you should not penalise them for the actions of the few who wouldn't be

prinz

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I'd really love to read these studies....

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf


http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Well I'm living in Scandinavia and they seem to be doing just fine. There are thousands of things that can cause social difficulties in the wrong hands but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. There are millions of drivers in Ireland and a small percentage of them drink drive. That doesn't mean we should make driving illegal for the majority who are responsible about it.

And in the same way, the majority of gay people would make good parents so you should not penalise them for the actions of the few who wouldn't be

Again it's a constitutional and social problem, not legalisation. It's interesting to note that in the first study linked above they referred to
"same-sex marriages" and "opposite-sex marriages" like Miss California

Heineken Helen

Dudess wrote: »

The view that marriage should only be between a man and a woman (a mention of same-sex couples isn't even required to be brought into it) is not necessarily homophobic.

Being of the view the races must not intermarry IS racist. - because it is ultimately based on skin colour.

I agree completely and don't understand how people don't get this. Marriage is ultimately, and originally was, a religious ceremony. Religions have certain beliefs and certain things rules... whether you agree with them or not.

People knock religions for having changed the rules throughout time to suit society... but the same people will say 'another reason I hate religion is cos they won't allow gay marriage':rolleyes: . You either abide by the rules or you don't.

HOWEVER, marriage has evolved into something different now where, quite often, couples need to get married to have certain rights that they don't have as individuals. If LAWS are there for married couples, it's not fair that not everybody has access to these laws.

So, I'm all for gay marriage, I just don't understand why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that has ostracised them.

I think she worded her answer quite carefully and it's amazing it's made the news considering people would say stuff like that all the time and all over the world :cool:

I guess winning a beauty pageant is about being an ambassador for your place and for the pageant and, since they do tend to have a large gay following, it's perfectly understandable that an answer like that would lose you some points.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Again it's a constitutional and social problem, not legalisation.

How does that affect the point that good people shouldn't be punished because of the potential actions of other people who happen to fall into the same social category as them?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How does that affect the point that good people shouldn't be punished because of the potential actions of other people who happen to fall into the same social category as them?

Outlawing homosexuality is punishing people amd homophobic.

The state saying it recognises the role of heterosexual families as a good basis for society, and the raising of children and all that comes with that, and wishes to protect that view constitutionally does not punish anyone. Are priests out complaining they're being punished against??

BlitzKrieg

prinz wrote: »

Again it's a constitutional and social problem, not legalisation. It's interesting to note that in the first study linked above they referred to
"same-sex marriages" and "opposite-sex marriages" like Miss California

No she left out the *sex* part and just called it opposite marriage.

also I am reading your report atm but

the writer:

On January 26, 2005, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post uncovered records of Gallagher receiving payments of tens of thousands of dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services from 2002-03 for helping the George W. Bush administration promote the President's "healthy marriage" initiative.[4] During this time, Gallagher testified before Congress in favor of "healthy marriage" programs, but never disclosed the payments.[5]

is not the most trustworthy.

rainbow kirby

prinz wrote: »

The state saying it recognises the role of heterosexual families as a good basis for society, and the raising of children and all that comes with that, and wishes to protect that view constitutionally does not punish anyone. Are priests out complaining they're being punished against??

Priests chose to be priests. Gay people didn't choose to be gay. :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Outlawing homosexuality is punishing people amd homophobic.

The state saying it recognises the role of heterosexual families as a good basis for society, and the raising of children and all that comes with that, and wishes to protect that view constitutionally does not punish anyone. Are priests out complaining they're being punished against??

Priests chose a life of celibacy so they'd have no one to complain to except themselves. Your point isn't actually a response to mine, it's just rhetoric. Saying the state recognises the role of heterosexual families does not say why they don't recognise gay families and neglects the fact that it also recognises many other types of family, such as single parent families and poor families which can also lead to social problems.

And just saying that wishes to protect that view constitutionally doesn't punish anyone doesn't make it true, it punishes gay people who would make good parents. And why should they be punished?

Darkbloom

thelordofcheese wrote: »

I really can't believe that people are still trying to dress up their denial of rights to a group of people as some kind of moral crusade to preserve the fabric of society.

Indeed. Denial of civil rights is bigotry, no matter which way you present it.

I did enjoy the repeated crying of the old religious defence.

And by the way, it is the wrong answer, purely because she should have known that the correct answer was that such things are decided at a federal level, and therefore it is your standard "democracy is great blah blah blah" answer.

Darkbloom

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And why should they be punished?

Because he doesn't want to see men holding hands in the street.:rolleyes:

Darkbloom

Heineken Helen wrote: »

I agree completely and don't understand how people don't get this. Marriage is ultimately, and originally was, a religious ceremony.

I take it you've never heard of a registry office?

If my boyfriend and I got married tomorrow, I'm not sure it'd be in a church; he's atheist. Marriage has ceased to be the sole domain of religions.

prinz

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

is not the most trustworthy.

And the vast majority of people campaigning for same-sex marriages are gay.............. any more or less trustworthy?