South Africa's high court approves gay marriage

[Ibby]

9th, there is NO way at ALL in which forbidding gays to marry is not sexism and homophobia. It is discrimination, plain and simple. Seperate but equal is not going to cut it. I will settle for nothing short of full legal equality and cessation of discrimination based on gender.

[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.

[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?

[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.

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.

[9th Engineer]

Ibram, for the n'th time would you explain how this is sexism? Gay is not a gender. Also, you absolutely cannot remove love from the equation, that's all this is based on. A gay man wants to marry another man because of love (I'm assuming for the sake of argument), otherwise he is free to marry a woman. With love removed it disentigrates into "I wanna do this!", which isn't a valid reason for anything more important than a late night snack. I want some more arguments from Ibram that don't boil down to either "It's sexism!"(unproven) or "It's just WRONG not to!"(is that the best you can do?).
Lovely little rant about my being unAmerican there tw, so now you think you are right because you label your opponet as freedom hating and unAmerican? Readers would do well to remember how fast he was to resort to smear tactics and challenges of Americanism once responded to. His other key blunder is that his entire post is hinged on his statement that he is right.

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.

Lets look beyond the fact that you are equating my viewpoint with mass-murder here for a second. I said that my principles will not allow me to agree with you, you make the leap to saying that they will always keep me in the wrong. You say two things boldly up front here, neither of which are true 1) You admit you are wrong - Really? Where do I say that? I am no more convinced of any error on my part than when we started. 2) Since I disagree with you I can never be right - Wow, ladies and gentlemen I give you the great debating prowess of tw! I stand in awe, but not of your capacity for argument.

Principle is also characteristic of one who believes he is the new messiah. Does that personal (religous) belief justify hate of gay marriage.
...
So do you really believe you are the new messiah?

I'm going to keep this one, you are actually accusing me of proclaiming myself as a relieous messiah?? I'm touched

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.

Ah yes, I disagree with a change you like and that means that I am standing in the way of progress. Has anyone ever challenged your notion that your viewpoint constitutes the advancement of mankind? Perhaps you need a little more varience in the opinions of those around you. And you shouldn't be supprised that it's an engineer taking you up on this, we're trained to think things through to every outcome and not to become blinded to an ideology.

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.

You demand my explanation and then pretend I didn't answer?? Can you really have read my posts and still think that this little rant means anything? More adhominem attacks on his opponents Americanism.

All you did in that entire post was restate your unsupported opinion over and over again while challenging my worth as an American. I'll let people judge for themselves how this reflects on your ability to debate an issue.

Ok, a breather, then on to the next batch of responses...

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Ibram, for the n'th time would you explain how this is sexism? Gay is not a gender. Also, you absolutely cannot remove love from the equation, that's all this is based on. A gay man wants to marry another man because of love (I'm assuming for the sake of argument), otherwise he is free to marry a woman. With love removed it disentigrates into "I wanna do this!", which isn't a valid reason for anything more important than a late night snack. I want some more arguments from Ibram that don't boil down to either "It's sexism!"(unproven) or "It's just WRONG not to!"(is that the best you can do?).

To say "a man can marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman", or "a woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man" is sexist in every sense of the word. Anything that discriminates based on gender is sexist by definition. Simple as that. To say that any person can not marry who he or she wishes, whether that person is a he or she, is BULLSHIT, and discriminatory to boot.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Ibram

To say "a man can marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman", or "a woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man" is sexist in every sense of the word. Anything that discriminates based on gender is sexist by definition. Simple as that.

Sexist (sexism) is discrimination based on gender. Saying men may marry but women may not, or vice versa, is sexism. Not allowing same sex marriage, although discriminatory, is not sexism.

[9th Engineer]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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

Is that seriously how you vote? Or for that matter make any decisions in life??

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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.

You are basically telling me you have a blind devotion to the cause and really aren't basing your decision on an underlying set of principles. Are you trying to come across as a siren in that last line? 'Don't think ahead, just do what feels right, it'll be easy'. I wouldn't be this far in life if I followed advice like that.

9th, you obviously recognize the legitimate point of view regarding gay marriage,

If you want to phrase it that way then I certainly do, I oppose it.

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.

Nice little attack and retreat there rkzenrage, care to provide an explanation of your own logic?
I am a Libertarian at heart, I am, but I am not stupid enough to pretend I live an a libertarian society. For example, I'd love to see a world in which everyone is responsible for themselves and we don't need a welfare system, but I certainly wouldn't vote for a measure to eliminate welfare from our current system.
And for the last time, love is NOT a human right.

[9th Engineer]

You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally.

I absolutely did say how this affects me personally, re-read post 92#. There is nothing more pitiful than a hypocrite, but I see that having a set of principles has gone out of style

[Ibby]

So wait, we can discuss gay marriage, but if someone disagrees with us we arent allowed to discuss it with THEM? Okay, some people ARE attacking him, but as far as I can tell, the majority of posters are simply arguing and discussing the fact that his position is unacceptably discriminatory and homophobic.

[Aliantha]

I haven't attacked the poster in any way, but 9th continually ignores my posts. The only ones he seems to address are the ones which he finds insulting.

[Undertoad]

WTF with this permission to disagree crap? Most posters are asking 9th to defend his viewpoint, not demanding that he not state it or even that he change it. Nobody has demanded that he leave and I would expect that if polled, 100% would demand that he stay.

There are plenty of minority viewpoints here and being a long-termer means you've lived through having the minority view a couple of times. It's hard, you're actually asked to defend yourself. And if you can't defend yourself, people don't take you seriously. (While if you do, even those that disagree will respect you.)

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And if you can't defend yourself, people don't take you seriously. (While if you do, even those that disagree will respect you.)

That's the essence of a message board. I don't see how one could get much out of it otherwise.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

...

Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.

In the end, when I balence the pros vs the cons of this decision that's what I'm taking into account. You are elevating simple desire to godlike proportions, liberal application of Occam's Razor is neccessary here.

So, that's the logic trail. Laws should be built on precident, science, and logic, not emotions. Now that I've said my peace I have nothing more to add.

Good post. You've defined the terms and established your position, while trying to trim the fat. But... At the end of it all, this is what I see your point being left with: when you balance "the pros and cons" of the position you factor "government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies" versus a big fat nothing. You attempt to evaporate the opposition viewpoint (if I may presume to lump) in a puff of peripherally related science jargon. In effect, to you: there is no opposition viewpoint. That's not a debate, that's just rhetorical masturbation.

If we follow, to it's logical conclusion, your proposal that no human emotions be considered in the crafting of our laws, then the world would be a very different place. That simply isn't realistic, and it doesn't stand to reason that a society of organisms with biological mechanisms that produce emotions would govern themselves in a sort of theoretical vacuum where thses emotions don't exist. That very idea simply represents a different kind of idealism. Pragmatism has to follow it's own rules, or it risks becoming a parody of itself.

[Ibby]

Now, I will say that at this point, I don't respect 9th, or at least his views on this because I find being a homophobe to be on par with being in the KKK or being a neo-nazi.