And...again abge - since you don't seem to be able to read aynthing posted - I have said I really don't care who you marry, or how many you marry, lest you think you are casting aspersions at me personally, as you are prone to do when you get all arrogant and condescending. It's too bad your reading skills aren't as great as you think they are.

@Draug - show me a gay gene...same thing.

All I'm saying is that when gays make the argument "I'm born this way" therefore you can't judge my behavior, I say fine, the alcoholic makes the same claim.

If, on the other hand, the gay person is NOT "born that way", but it is a learned/choosen behavior, then it is incredibly offensive to try to equate a learned/choosen behavior to being BLACK or being a WOMAN.

It is an offensive argument - there are plenty of valid argument for gays to make without having to resort to giving themselves the moral equivalency of race or gender.

OK krellin, great chat, as always.

Draug - and if alcoholism is a genetic predisposition, regardless of whether is causes harmful behavior, you shouldn't treat it the same as learned criminal behavior....IF the same holds true for gay (i.e. gay is genetic, therefore morally equivalent to race/gender).

Why throw an alcoholic in jail for behavior they can't control -- not fair, right?

(No, I'm *not* actually defending alcoholism, - you do know that)

abge - have fun finding someone else to try to condescend to.

First: most of Draug's answers are really good, and i'm just echoing them.

"it's possible they could severely reduce the number of gay people.

Whether or not that's a good thing is another question."

This is called Eugenics, and is considered a bad thing, mostly lost popularity because of the Nazis, and the fact that nobody likes to be compared with the Nazis...

Notice that abortions based on gender happen in the two most populous nations in the world (India and China) and are causing untold social damage.

Also worth noting, deaf communities in the developed world are being destroyed by new technology which gives kids partial hearing, the state of being deaf - deafhood - is being destroyed and their culture wiped out. This practice may be described as cultural genocide.

"Alternate question: Why is *government acknowledged* gay marriage good for society?

And don't play the "It's only fair" card"

Because dividing people and excluding them from society makes them fight, and conflict decreases co-operation which is bad for society (see: theft, murder, war, union strikes, terrorism etc) - oh wait, that is the fucking 'its only fair card' because guess what dickhead, making society fair is a good thing for society.

'For example, government don't equally tax people' - eh, yeah they do, everyone gets the same formula applied to them - your first €16K is tax free (poverty level), then your next €10K is taxed at 5%, then your next €40K is taxed at 23%... etc

"And, gays can currently get married - to a member of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, right? " - and no, almost no person in the world wants to marry a member of the opposite sex (except to get a green card, or EU citizenship... or whatever exploit) With these exceptions, people want to marry someone they love, note: you don't marry a randomly selected member of the opposite sex, you choose to marry a person you love - that is the criteria people use, and that is the perspective we should consider. To look at it otherwise is disingenuous.

"If gays can get married, then I want to marry my girlfriend and have two wives - I'm being disenfranchised from my special three-way love and our lover is oppressed by this bigotry - she's being cut out of rights of visitation when I die, etc even though she shares our bed, blah blah blah." - yes, this is a valid objection to the monogamy which dominates marriage, there is no particular reason i can think of to prevent polyamourous couples from having group marriages. Please read 'The Ethical Slut' if you wish to understand a bit more about this life-style.

"Government disenfranchises people all the time, but people throw this argument out as if it's the end of the discussion in gay marriage. Logically, it's not...not even close."

The fact that government fails many times over to make everyone happy, doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't seek to improve.

That's like arguing that there will always be poverty, therefore we shouldn't bother with any charity... Just because there will always be problems doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to fix some issues.

"Draug - why does it need to be "marriage"? Why can't it be a simply "civil" arrangement that bestows upon them contractual rights to hospital visitation, financial benefits, etc?"

It doesn't, but that the 'treating equally' clause means removing the word marriage from all currently married couples. Which politicians don't have the backbone to propose.

"YOU, personally, have the God-Given right of your creation TO PERSONALLY PURSUE HAPPINESS."

Which includes the right to pursue marriage equality, and legislate for it.

@Draug: "And the only reason I restrict it to two people is for logistics purposes. If 8 people are legally unified and one of them is comatose, how do you decide which opinion to follow when the other 7 can't agree?" - what if one parent has 7 children, and these next of kin can't agree? This kind of logistic problem is not prevented and currently (in Ireland at least) most doctors will choose a course of action based on medical grounds, not family decisions.

"Marriage is a label that is sacred to some" - whoop-de-fucking-do; scientologists may consider psychiatry to be a sacred (but evil) label, and I see no reason why their religious beliefs should dictate to the state what they should or shouldn't call anything.

"They push for the cultural add-on of calling a gay civil union a marriage, even though throughout human history it has never been so." - that is not true, marriage was considered a personal decision, churches only got involved as a matter of public record - because they were the only ones who could write things down and keep the records.

The Christian cultural attacks on gay-marriage have been around for less than 2 thousand of years, but no more than that. And male-male relationships were common in pre-christian greece and rome (which we have writings of, whether they were common elsewhere is harder to state) AND there is at least one recorded gay-marriage in a monastery in Spain in 1061, see : http://www.galiciae.com/nova/78210.html

"The Federal Government should not be involved in making cultural decisions." - agreed, it should be about implementing cultural decisions made by the people. As it is doing here.

"This isn't about equal rights, it's about attacking the existing majority cultural; it's about cultural change, period." - This IS about equal rights. It is PRECISELY about cultural change as the only means to achieve those rights.

Forget the stupid arguments made on both sides of the debate for a moment. Do you really feel alcoholics have just as much a right to act on their temptations as gay people do? As a functional stoner I realize I have less of a right to blaze as I do than anyone should have to love and MARRY the person he/she wants.

Orathaic - I was reading your post, until you said, "guess what dickhead" and I quit.

I actually just trying to have a discussion, not make a moral judgement, as my stance on the issue has been posted multiple times now. Just because I am asking questions to understand the arguments people make doesn't mean you have to get bitchy. It's called educating yourself...oh...unless all you people know every argument to every question.

I guess I'll mute you because you can't be civil.

y2k - I've already answered that.

krellin, do you know any gay people?

Yes you have. It's a shame so many others share your bigoted view.

Yes, bo, I know gay people and <gasp> am even <gasp> friends with gay people.

Moron.

"what if one parent has 7 children, and these next of kin can't agree? This kind of logistic problem is not prevented and currently (in Ireland at least) most doctors will choose a course of action based on medical grounds, not family decisions"

That is one of the *very* few advantages of socialized medicine. Here in the US, keeping a person on life support for years and years can bankrupt a family and wipe out an estate.

Moron? I didn't even make a point yet, and I'm still a moron?

Might as well have asked krellin if he has 6 testicles.

"Yes you have. It's a shame so many others share your bigoted view. "

fucking illiterate moron. MY VIEW as stated MULTIPLE TIMES in this thread is I don't care WHO you marry. Marry your fucking dog, for all I care, moron.

Way to demonstrate those great reading comprehension skills.

Hi wife keeps his testicles in a jar by the door, right next to her face.

Um... that came out a bit wrong. It's supposed to be an Eleanor Rigby reference.

really, bo, and your childish question wasn't your pathetic attempt to try to slip in an insult, because I dare to have this conversation you think I'm a bigot, right?

fuck off bo.

hey bo - if you want to make a point, don't act like a child asking stupid (what you perceive as) "gotcha questions"...just make your point, child.

Krellin - I'm going to come out and ask this directly. Given the current state of inequality between Civil Unions and Marriage, do you support the right of all people to marry the person of their choice, regardless of sex, assuming that person is able to legally enter into a binding contract?

A simple yes or no will do.

Nah, you've proven yourself a bigot in the past; I didn't have to prove that. We all know.

Could you please clarify, though - how many testicles do you have? I think there is some extra testosterone in your system. (That's not a guy compliment; that's a biological abnormality, you just seem way too hyped up over this argument.)

His answer is somehow yes and no at the same time.

It's "yes, I'm okay with gay people having gay sex" as well as "no, I'm not okay with married gay people having married gay sex."

I'm impressed.

Draug, it's pathetic to see you jump on the bandwagon with child-Bo and y2k, when I have answered this question multiple times I thought you had a shred more integrity than the children. I guess I was wrong.

God forbid we have a conversation...but I know, with all the deficient reading skills of the children here that's difficult.

Is this not a conversation? If you're offended by me calling you a bigot I can stop, I figured you had a tougher skin.

And maybe the illiteracy you claim all of us have is somewhat rooted in the massive amount you post that ultimately draws some contradictions.

"Orathaic - I was reading your post, until you said, "guess what dickhead" and I quit."

Yeah, see your position was that you were a dickhead and thus the government being fair TO OTHERS wasn't important (specifically you said 'don't play the it's fair card') I wasn't making some random claim, i was describing your position as 'dickhead-ish' - while explaining the reasons for this being the case.

Huh...funny how quiet a thread gets when you silence the children who have only come to throw insults, and who don't actually want to read what was written and contribute.

I guess those children are probably the ones that are closet homophobes - yeah, you Bo - who can't discuss the issue clearly for fear of revealing his own high school homophobia.

Well my first kiss was with another guy, so I guess traumatic past experiences could play a part in my rampant, uncontrolled homophobia.

I ask krellin for a straight answer to a simple question and here is the response I get in PM.

"....and fuck you, too. I'm actually trying to have a civil discussion, in part because I'm curious about the arguments people make. I've actually not been insulting people, etc, despite the people that want to come in an insult me. If you want to join in with the little bo's and insult me to, then thanks for the conversation, I'm done."

Did I insult him? No. I merely asked him for a simple yes or no that would clarify his position. I can easily answer that question in the affirmative. Clearly he cannot.

Because he can't hold up without his best ally, Draug. You stabbed him. HOW DARE YOU!