South Africa's high court approves gay marriage

[9th Engineer]

I can live with any interpretation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the comparison to the KKK or neo-nazi's holds any water at all. Both of those groups advocate violence against their target groups, I haven't done anything of the sort. I choose not to overlay homosexuality with nonscientific information, but to look at it as what it most likely is, a genetic permutation in some part of the genes controlling phermone or other chemical receptors. I make no connection between that chemical shift and the person as a whole, and have no malice toward homosexual individuals.

I often don't respond to posts I don't agree with because I first spend my time responding to ones where I have a different opinion to offer. I generally don't bother to simply post an agreement, although I may make a point to from time to time now. Ali, the only time you posted anything that someone could respond to in this thread was that last post right before my massive one which was dedicated to as complete of an explanation of my view as I could fit in there.
If there was someone else arguing my point as well I'd probably be able to respond to more people directly, but as it is I'd have to spend way more time then I have right now on just this thread.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I can live with any interpretation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the comparison to the KKK or neo-nazi's holds any water at all. Both of those groups advocate violence against their target groups, I haven't done anything of the sort. I choose not to overlay homosexuality with nonscientific information, but to look at it as what it most likely is, a genetic permutation in some part of the genes controlling phermone or other chemical receptors. I make no connection between that chemical shift and the person as a whole, and have no malice toward homosexual individuals.

I just don't see how you can advocate discrimination against people based soley on their gender, ESPECIALLY based on their gender in relation to anybody elses. To me, that is simply, completely, utterly, and wholly wrong.

[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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I can live with any interpretation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the comparison to the KKK or neo-nazi's holds any water at all. Both of those groups advocate violence against their target groups, I haven't done anything of the sort. I choose not to overlay homosexuality with nonscientific information, but to look at it as what it most likely is, a genetic permutation in some part of the genes controlling phermone or other chemical receptors.

Summarized as you had posted previously in the longer post. It is your opinion and you have every right to it. But where in any of that do gay marriages, even slightly, adversely affect you?

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Does this affect me, absolutely. I can make the choice of whether I agree with the changes or not, but don't delude yourself that anything people do has no effect on others.

9th - you have not even attempted to prove how this adversely affects you in any way - in the slightest. However you have taken such aversion to other's right to marriage that you have converted a non-issue into a major (and silly) issue.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

However, gay marriage is not the most pressing issue in this catagory.

If you (and those like you) just ignored the issue, then the issue would be solved without hate, all persons rights would be honored, and other pressing issues could then be addressed.

Gay marriage affect you neither any way nor ever. This demonstrated by post and after post where you have yet to demonstrate how this affects you. Complete avoidance of why it affects you demonstrates that gay marriage is totally irrelevant to your life. The only reason it affects you is because you are emotionally opposed to gay marriage - for no logical reasons - and for reasons you do not attempt to explain.

[9th Engineer]

No, my reasoning has been spread over quite a few different posts I guess, I'll explain. I believe that I must behave in accordence with the current state of the system, and I also believe that once I make a stand on an issue I must stand by my logic or take back everything based on it right back to the first step. Refering back to something I posted a short while ago I explained my doubts with making a first step because the rest of the system will not be able to remain in isolation from it (that's what I meant when I said it affects me, I am responsible for everything I stand for). So if I said, "I will vote on my conscience that everyone has the right to marry who they love" then I have to make all subsequent decisions without breaking that statement. Because our society is so interlinked other groups would be able to make strong cases based on the same logic, polygamists are already poised to start pushing mainstream. No matter what the consequences of my first decision, I am obliged to support new people and new causes which I may feel very strongly against, because otherwise I would be a hypocrite. Polygamy by itself is a good example. If it becomes mainstream and is purged of the obvious abuses that plauge the isolated communities now then people would probably say that it was a good thing to legalize it. However, the ramifications of legal polygamy are much more complicated (this has been brought up I think), and would probably cause harm overall. However, I would still be stuck by my original statement that people who love each other should be allowed to marry, and can you look at a group of people and say who does and does not love each other? Because of all this I feel that I cannot make that first statement, because I cannot ignore the problems and abuses (intentional and unintentional) that may follow later as a result.
That is how it will affect me tw, I cannot pretend that I live in a system other than the one we have, or that I can make idealistic decisions and retract earlier statements as I see fit. You would be asking me to turn a blind eye to my eventual hypocracy.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

... I believe that I must behave in accordence with the current state of the system,...

If everyone took that approach, the would be no USA - we just would have behaved in the current (British) system. We also would never have allowed women or African Americans to vote.

Allowing same-gender marriage would not create a whole new set of laws. It would merely allow a greater number of people to be married.

BTW - Do you feel that you must behave in accordance with the current state of other systems? For instance, you don't want to change the current welfare system?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

If there was someone else arguing my point as well I'd probably be able to respond to more people directly, but as it is I'd have to spend way more time then I have right now on just this thread.

Well then, if you only have limited time to respond, I personally vote that you respond to my post.

[Aliantha]

So you're saying it's an ''extra" right for people to marry someone they love rather than just getting married to anyone?

I don't understand your argument.

[9th Engineer]

Ah, this is why you and I will probably NEVER see eye to eye on things Ali, you just posted exactly what I think and then proceded to say you don't understand it at all. I'm not comfortable with love taking a place in legality, we can't even figure out what the damn thing is but we'll legislate based on it? Besides, just look at what you said, 'the right to marry someone you love', you think that would make any sense in the constitution??

[Ibby]

What youre saying is sexist, at the essence of the term, because it says that we can decide who can do what with who based on gender.

That, boys and girls, is discrimination, plain and simple.

[Aliantha]

For someone so young you seem very cynical 9th.

So you think no one should get married then? Or people should only get married to 'benefit' one another in a financial sense? What?

[Ibby]

I think Ali's point is that you're calling it an EXTRA right to be able to marry someone.

EDIT: or maybe not, but its MY point, thats for sure.

[Aliantha]

There are lots of married people on this site who're conservative or liberal, and I doubt any of them considered it an 'extra' right to marry the one they love instead of someone who might have been more 'suitable' for whatever reason there could be.

[9th Engineer]

I'm not advocating marriage as just a utilitarian tool, and I certainly abhor arranged marriages, but I just don't think that writing new laws so that love can conqure all is ever going to have its intended effect. The idea of fairness in the eats at me too. If I said that two gays who love each other should be able to marry no matter what hurdles we have to deal with in the process of working that into law, then I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't say the same for people like polygamists and other groups that would have that same right. No matter what the consequences of the original action, those that come from further actions neccessitated by the first fall under the same catagory. I'd have to choose between being a hypocrite and making decisions that I honestly think would do more harm than good.

I do realize that I'm extremely cynical about alot of things, the reality of law and the nature of human relationships among them unfortunately. It stems from the fact that I was very idealistic early on and got hit hard by reality through highschool and my first years in college so far. At heart I'd love for everything to be as fair and balanced as possible, that's why I'm mostly a classic libertarian. I'd fight tooth and nail to keep someone from raising my taxes %X, but I harbor a fantasy about being a philanthropist and inspiring teens when I probably could have used some inspiration myself. Is it any wonder I come across as a complete misanthrope?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

There are lots of married people on this site who're conservative or liberal, and I doubt any of them considered it an 'extra' right to marry the one they love instead of someone who might have been more 'suitable' for whatever reason there could be.

Sometimes its extra wrong!:p

9th... please do not call yourself a Libertarian.
The LAST thing we do is worry about what others are doing. You have issues with others who have sex with others of the same sex and want to deny them security for your own reasons. Fine, deal with it.
However, that concept is as far from the idea of Libertarianism as any concept can get.