Obama endorses same-sex marriage (Page 16)

Easy, triathlon population is not representative of the general population.  As much as it's growing, triathlon is still a very small segment of the population.  So simply based on your observation, one could deduce that the triathlon population voicing it's opinion on BT tends to be more socially liberal.

DonTracy, thank you for posting that video.  It was quite interesting to watch, however not in the way you intended.  I didn't see any bullying there.  The students who didn't want to hear him were allowed to leave and those who did were allowed to stay.  There was no "over the top, in your face" aspect to it.  No one was cornered, and no one was forced to listen to anything they didn't want to hear.  I think his points were perfectly valid.  I have a hard time understanding your term of "bullying" toward his speech as he did not get in anyone's face and force them to listen to his diatribe.  All the "bible guys" were out in the hall at that point if you watch the exodus.  And as far as "bigotry", well granted, he did say they were "pansy @ss" and while that was uncalled for, I can probably forgive him considering the persecution he has had to suffer for his lifestyle.  In addition his quotations of the bible was exactly that, a quotation, and perfectly accurate.  Is it wrong to quote the bible as I have seen you do?

The only one I see here exhibiting bigotry is, well, you.  And I don't' mean that offensively but the definition of bigotry is: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Granted I give you an out with "racial or ethnic group" as opposed to "sexual orientation", but intolerance is the keystone in my opinion.  And all I see Dave Savage doing is asking for tolerance.

I would really like to see a calm and rational debate on this matter; snarky remarks and outright attacks are not going to convince anyone else, nor are they going to further the conversation and clearly there is conversation to be had here.

My own view is simple:  Two age-of-consent-or-over adults who love each other and decide to commit have the right to do so legally and with the same rights given to all other pairs of adults who make the same decision. 

I would also like to see an anti-SSM argument that doesn't involve religion.

Justin, so you agree with Savage's tactics?
If so, you make my point along with Tony.

Kids were crying in the hallway because of what he said to them.
And this was from Obama's anti-bullying point man at an anti-bullying high school event for gosh sakes!

Justin there are valid, compelling and rational reasons for holding that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman. 
Myself, I changed my position of support for the LGBT agenda, one that I had held since the 1970's,
after working through those arguments and reasons and coming to understand that they were in fact correct.
All of the emotional appeals, straw men, and diversions won't change the soundness of those arguments. 

So far in this thread, Don, you haven't enumerated or even mentioned what they are. You've thrown out one example of a gay man that you perceive to have bullied youngsters, you've made a lot of grand but general sweeping claims, but I do know you have (or believe you have) "valid, compelling and rational reasons" and I (I'm sure many others, posting or not) would genuinely like to know what they are.

I don't agree with his name calling (which was a singular instance that I caught), but I do agree with his right to say that he/they don't have to be subject to the bible.  As to why the kids were crying I do not understand that.  He spoke to the general audience and did not bully anyone.  Them standing out in the hall crying is akin to my sitting at the computer crying because of what you wrote.  While I may disagree and/or not like your view, it is still your view and you have every right to espouse it in an open forum.  If I don't want to read it, I don't have to come into the forum.  Same with the students.  Are you bullying me by writing what you write?  I don't think so.  Have you bullied any of the posters on here?  I don't think so.  Unless your definition of bullying "saying something I don't like" I didn't see it in his speech either.

 Would the emotional appeals you're talking about be the video you posted and the discussions of students crying, or the straw men the bullying of heterosexuals, or the diversions be that we are talking about a bullying video as it pertains to SSM?

I am aware of your views on SSM and have read your arguments several times through out the years.  I also understand the reasons that you say are valid.  I just happen to disagree with the validity of them, though.

I did, my dear friend. I put it out earlier in this thread and got one response as I recall and then crickets chirping afterwards. Robert George's formulation will be the philosophical foundation if there is ever a SCOTUS case that involves gay marriage and the 14th Amendment.

I also jumped into this thread with a layman's exegesis regarding the scriptural foundation for marriage as between one man and one woman, a point that also happens to tear apart the straw man "Leviticus Shellfish Defense" that's thrown out there these days by people such as Dan Savage.  

What I haven't done is go through every point in detail. And frankly, I don't see an openness in tone here that makes me think it's worth the time. I don't perceive much if any open mindedness on the issue.

Wow, pot calling the kettle black.

I read somewhere, forget who it was, that genuine disagreement is extremely rare.
For it to happen, both parties need to actually agree on all the points of the other's argument
and then still come to different conclusions. That doesn't happen very often.

An example would be the death penalty. I oppose it.  I can argue with someone who supports it,
and assuming that they don't believe in using it for retribution, we'll probably agree on each point the other makes
and still draw different conclusions and have different opinions on it.  That's general disagreement.

What I perceive here on this thread is different.

There's a principle called "invincible ignorance".   For whatever reason, education, cultural formation, ideology, people become incapable of looking at a question objectively in order to find the truth of the matter. My own opinion is that the invincible ignorance at play today comes out of a fear that if one finds that they are  actually wrong in their opinion they'll then need to make a real change.  That's scary stuff and I understand that.

I appreciate what you said at the end of your last post and understand it is said in friendship.  However, my points are indeed valid.  You may draw different conclusions, but that doesn't negate their validity.  You'd then have to defend your conclusions with equally valid reasons.

I'm guessing that you think that open mindedness would mean agreeing with your progressive opinion about something regardless of the facts.  I use to be open minded like that.

Now I think of it rather as desiring to find the truth in the matter, and then changing one's life accordingly.

Of the first kind, GK Chesterton said something like, "you shouldn't have such an open mind that your brains fall out". 

I agree that you must first agree on the points of the argument and this is where we have our most basic disagreement.  It is a disagreement that does not allow us to even get to the subject of SSM.  Almost all of your support/logic for your position is based in the ideology of the catholic church.  I have not entered into any discourse with you prior to today as I do not recognize the church or bible as any legitimate form of governance.  That and other similar belief systems are great for individuals as it pertains to themselves, but as it pertains to people other than themselves I do not see it's legitimacy.  That one simple difference makes most discussions futile.  We would first have to first parse out the existence of god and then the legitimacy of the catholic church itself before ever getting to SSM.  That is a virtual impossibility.  Hence crickets.

Invincible ignorance is simply a way to dismiss those who don't agree with you.  I've heard it called differently in psychology but the underlying concept is that same.  It doesn't really seem to fit here, IMO.  When faced with facts they disregard them in favor of their own viewpoint.  One must first agree that the facts they are faced with are indeed facts.

This really is the crux - we are only talking about what the STATE can define - contractual agreements with rights and responsibilities.   That is all I believe the state fo Colorado did for my husband and I - a civil union.   A MARRIAGE is what is created by the couple in the context of their family, believes, church, community.     The state cannot mandate that we respect and love each other, etc.   Therefore, the State should stop calling the contracts they issue to anyone "marriage licenses" and call them ALL "civil unions".   Granting "marriages" is above its ability.

Mary, I agree with you that you have hit on the CRUX of the debate.

What is marriage?

Until we (meaning those engaged in this thread and the wider debate) can agree on the definition of marriage, we're arguing from different bases.

Then we can move on to what marriage should be.

And whether opposite-sex marriages or any other kind (theoretical or otherwise) fulfill that "should."

And what role the STATE "should" play in marriages.

Don, I realize that's what you're trying to get at.

You've never shied from persisting with what you believe is the truth and trying to explain it to those who disagree with you. Maybe you're just tired of it. But then why even begin in this thread in the first place? To test the waters?

I have always left a discussion with you more enlightened than when I entered, regardless of the outcome (either generally or regarding my own beliefs and positions).

I meant it when I said I was genuinely interested. And I have always entertained and considered your input for what it is, not as a dartboard to identify which squares I'm going to target.

Left Brain posed a very important question ... WHY do such initiatives always get voted down? Those of us who believe marriage ought to be a right accorded to any two consenting adults have a tendency to wave away (as you point out) the dissenting views as being at best faith-based and slippery-slope, and at worst ignorant and homophobic. And yes, a lot of the views against SSM expressed here have been because "marriage is sacred and defined by God." (But I know there are logically constructed anti-SSM views, not merely appeals to specific belief). Well, then let's try to start with some common ground, and go back to your point and Mary's as well ...

What is marriage?

Haven't read the rest of the thread but wanted to chime in with my experiences up here in Canada. Though many provinces had their own legislation beforehand, in 2005 the Civil Marriage Act was enacted and defined marriage as gender-neutral nationwide. My understanding of why this came about is because of our Canada Human Right's Act states that "For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.' The government felt that limiting the legal protections and status of marriage was discriminatory against people based on sexual orientation, and thus violated the Act.

I don't know if similar legislation exists in the US as a whole (it actually wouldn't shock me if the government allowed people to discriminate based on sexual orientation because the church and state are so combined in the US) but if it does, in my mind the same idea applies. Not to allow marriage on a civil level (non-religious marriage as many US citizens do) is discrimination. If people want to get religiously married, that is their own business, and the state can't force any religion to marry anyone but on a civil level, it should be open to all consenting adults.

In our society is is a union that is both religious based and legally based. That's the problem.

For legal contracts... I can get drunk in Vegas. Marry a stranger at a drive through window. Unull it within 30 days... get drunk and do it all over again. Perfectly legal, and in the meantime my spouce is afforded all rights and privleges under the law of said status. Or I can cheat on my wife, get a divorce, go have a big fancy wedding in a church from a Minister, sleep with the bride's maid, get a divorce, and do it all over again. With both parties having all rights and privleges of said legal contract through the process. Or of course I can be legally married to my wife and we agree to have an open relationship and go to swinger conventions and get to have sex with who ever we want, but financially it just makes sense to be together.... or I can just shack up with a girl and we can both pay the electric bill for 6 months and be "common law" married with all the rights, and non of the work.

When put like that... religion has no place, the "institution" has no sactity, and all it is is nothing more than a civil contract. When put like that, it seems pretty funny that all people can't enter into any civil contract with whom ever they choose... even multiple people.

As far as what marriage actually means to a person... well I took a vow to do what I said with and for my wife and it means something. It means something to me with or without God, and with or without a church or Minister. I have a belief system that says it does. If others have a religious belief sytem they base their values on then that is great. And it should mean something to them. They should honor their beliefs, and their values.

But what it "means" to each individual has nothing to do with a "legal contract". That's the problem. People want to put their "meaning" of marriage and apply that to someone else's civil contract.... it does not work that way. You are allowed to give your "marriage" any "meaning" you want... but allowing SS parteners to be legaly joined... unioned, married... is not lisense for you to apply your meaning to them.

Good question.

I think it's because I miss you guys.

Aw, shucks. Us rabble-rousing noisy bunch of ... intelligent and lovable people?

I miss you, too, but you already know that.

So. Marriage is __________

I totally agree with the part of your post that I bolded, with a slight variance.

I think we'd first have to parse out that there is a transcendent reality to human existence and what the basic components of that reality are. The Founders called it a Creator, rather than God. That's fine. We can build a pluralistic civil society on that premise.

But you're right. Until that common ground gets worked out in a discussion, then it really is difficult if not impossible to come to common ground on specific issues that flow out of it.

The second part of the sentence I quoted I don't agree with. Of course I'd be thrilled if someone wanted to convert to Catholicism, but it's not necessary in order to find common ground on specific issues such as marriage.

Our own system of law based in English Common Law itself came out of the development of Canon Law within the Catholic Church. The Church herself gave us the process of using rules of evidence. So there's a rich tradition to be mined there regarding how to proceed in finding a just outcome for a matter.

I hope that we can reach an outcome here (in the general culture) and that it's not an impossibility.  I really do. 
I mean, what's the alternative? 

Intelligent for sure. I'm still deciding on the lovable people part.

OK, here again is the philosophical definition of marriage as formulated by Robert George, Professor of Law at Princeton.
It is the most compelling argument I've ever encountered regarding what marriage is in the civil sense. 

It's very technical and dry and takes a while to unpack, but it needs to be in order to meet the standard that everyone is asking for, namely a non-religious definition of marriage.

Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect (or are motivated, even in part, by a desire to reproduce).

The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a multi-level relationship: that is, a relationship that unites persons at the bodily, emotional, dispositional, and spiritual levels of their being.

Marriage, precisely as such a relationship , is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and to the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together.

The distinctive unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically - they become a single reproductive principle.

Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species, but by a mated pair as an organic unit. 

So Don, do you support what Bootygirl says. The state should issue civil unions and leave marriage to the people who fit the definition above? 

I think Don is taking a bit more heat than he should. I've had some private messages with him on matters of religion and I think he is one of the most eloquent people I've ever "talked" to. I disagree with just about everything he says, but I think he does an excellent job of bringing about the opposite view.

The heat's fine. I chose to jump it.

No I don't agree with Bootygirl.

In fact, it's not clear to me that states with no fault divorce laws even are issuing valid contracts any more.

A contract assumes both parties are bound by it.  If one party can render the contract null and void through no fault divorce means by simply going through a waiting period, then what exactly is the contract? What is being contracted?  

This goes beyond my understanding, so maybe a lawyer can jump in to explain. Maybe I'm missing something.

Let me throw a few things out there (and be the first to admit I'm sure I have not thought this through as clearly nor read as much about it as Don).

I am really uncomfortable with the State (states, countries, national-legal entities) issuing and enforcing contracts for people where the basis of the contract is an actual or implied sexual relationship.

In Moonbats Yanti World, things like tax breaks, credit, joint accounts would not exist for people bound (legally, principally, and/or actually) through such a relationship.

If you want to cohabit, establish joint ownership, etc. ... do so through current real estate or business laws and contracts.

If you want to raise children alone or with others, biological parenthood would take precedence in terms of establishing legal custody; otherwise, extant adoptive and/or guardianship (including multiple guardian) statutes would apply.

Unfortunately, the State has a strong interest in the establishment of family units and procreation. And that's why States are generally involved in issuing and enforcing marriage or marital-union type contracts.