You generalize far too much. In what post did I use the word "biggot?"

And yes, I can argue what the laws says and want it changed. It is a matter of federal law versus state law. There is no federal law that stipulates that gay marriages are illegal and nothing in the Constitution that implies such. There are, however, state laws that sanction gay marriage.

You will note, however, that the privacy in these cases have been interupted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has claimed that we have a right to privacy. What constitutes privacy has been defined both by the Supreme Court, the Federal Government, and the State.

And my argument wasn't that men and women were the same. I said they have the same legal rights. There is a difference. Marriage, in this case, is a legal institution as much as anything and as such, that factors into the equation.

No, I'm not even going to respond to that. Why did I even think I could try speaking rationally with Daganev?

I think this thread shows pretty clearly which side has rational arguments in the debate for equal rights in marriage.

Its clear to me none of you understand my position so let me try to make it more clear... It holds lots of "IFs" to it.

1. IF your going to say that the way marriage is done is wrong and it should be changed, THEN I argue that you should change all questionable aspects of it, and not just one of them.

2. One aspect of Marriage I find to be based purely on Christain religion (not mormons) and unequal is the notion that only two people can get married to eachother. It should be legal for multiple people to get married to eachother, i.e Polygamy should be legal.

3. IF you think that Polygamy should NOT be legal THEN it makes perfect sense to me that a Homosexual marriage should also not be legal.

4. In conclusion... Being against a "gay marriage" does not make you a biggot or a Homophobe.

I haven't really heard of a good reason consentual polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Narsrim pointed out the reason against incest.

Dodgy premise.

Laws of privacy are Highly inconsistant. For example Sometimes the court will say that medical records are private, and sometimes they will say that the medical record is not private. If the law is deciding what is privacy and what is not, then in the case of men going into a woman's bathroom or whatnot, they obviously do not say that men and woman are equal under the law. For here another man entering the bathroom does not violate your privacy, but woman entering the bathroom is a violation of your privacy.

Anorexia nervosa.

How is that dodgy? If I personally believe that the instituation of marriage is "Obviously" only for two persons, then I would be against any change in the law of marriage that leaves it open for such an "obvious" aspect to be attacked.

It becomes the case that "presedance" in the area of marriage means nothing. If for 200 known years marriage was only between a man and a woman, and now that is being said the past was wrong, then I can assume that ideas such as marriage only being for 2 people for 200 years, will also come under attack and thus not be an issue.

Medical records are as a rule of thumb always private. When are they not?

Thanks!

Why are there so many beautiful names for such awful afflictions?

Not exactly true; there are provisions in privacy laws for certain circumstances where it is seen that the release of the data is in the public interest. I don't see that as inconsistant.

Polygamy and gay marriage are two totally different topics. They both just happen to involve marriage.

Being married to someone of the same gender and being married to five people of the opposite gender present entirely different situations.

How about... gay polygamy?

Or... gay interracial illegal immigrant polygamists adopting a child with AIDs and then getting it aborted to eat its stem cells and become immortal, but then growing tired of immortality and getting an assisted suicide... by an anorexic doctor!

OMG TEH CONTROVERSY!!! SUM 1 CALL TH3 $UPREME C0URT!

Perhaps it is different here, but in New South Wales, and where I work in particular, we keep a Child Death Register that does allow us access to a child's medical records.

First, I think you need to understand how the political system works. It would be WONDERFUL if we could just wait until EVERYTHING was perfect then make ONE FABULOUS CHANGE. That, however, isn't going to happen.

I personally could care less of Polygamy was legal. However, the idea that to "fix" the problem you must address everything that could in any way related is unrealistic. That's not how the legal system works nor is it how society opperates. I am more than willing to try what has worked: baby steps. We fix a little, we move on, we fix more.

It you have some grand plan that can address everything at once and get through the system, I'm all ears.

Well in the States, the medical records of a deceased child are still considered confidential. There are certain apects that may be released without violating this such as "cause of death," but it never done with the association of the name of the child + cause of death (in this example).

Ie. I'm doing a study on SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). I can access general statistical information (how many people died from SIDS last year), but nothing that reveals anything on a specific individual without consent from parents.

Meh, your missing the "if" statements again.

I should learn to bold the word "if" everytime I use it.

I can only see one reason to say that polygamy is not allowed. That reason would be "Tradition..."(As sung in Fiddler on the Roof)

On the same note, "since" there is a large amount of fraud when it comes to marriage allready (i.e. marrying people you don't know for tax status or immigration) I can only see an increase in fraud, because of an increase of incentive and ease, "if" polygamy is allowed.

The main agrument for gay marriage is that the "tradition" is wrong and discriminitory. Therefore for one to support gay marriage, they would also need to support polygamy. "SINCE" my arguments against polygamy are not legally sound, they are only a feeling I have of what I would not want the world to be like, "If" I voted to have same sex marriages then I would also have to vote for polygamy. Since I do not want polygamy, I do not want same sex marriage.

In addition... "If" I were to agree that banning same sex marriage is discrimination based on sex, "Then" I would also have to agree that any diferentiation based on Sex is discriminatory and I would have to also support and argue for Same sex bathrooms, and same sex dorm rooms. And since I don't want same sex bathrooms or same dorm rooms then I still have to vote no for same sex marriage.


Neither of those two arguments are in anyway homophobic or biggoted, and they are the main reasons why many gay people do not agree with same sex marriage. Thus, those early posts of saying how much they hate Biggots and Christains because they won't vote yes on same sex marriage, ignore the facts that many people can vote no for same sex marraige and NOT be biggots.

I'm sure since I kept on typing thats not going to make sense and I'm going to have explain myself in circles again.


It would be so much easier if people just believed people when they claimed to not hate people.

Ah that's sort of interesting. Here I know for certain that a lot of detail is given to us, including their name, their parents names, any preexisting conditions, cause of death, photos of the deceased, and much more. I've done a little work for that team and some of the detail is actually quite disturbing.

Oh and by the way, my workplace released a study into the SUDI (Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infacy) trend in NSW, which includes SIDS. I can send you a link to it if you think it might help. I know the data will not since it is specific to NSW, but it might give you some ideas perhaps?

For some unkown reason, the media is given full access to the medical records of people who do not want thier information given out to the public.

You missed the point.

Its an issue of being consistant in your voting habits, not an issue of getting laws changed. This discussions started with people talking about how evil people are that they vote against gay marriage.

Marrying someone for tax breaks is not considered fraud. It isn't a crime at all. While it may violate the spirit of the tax break, it isn't exactly "wrong."

And Daganev, racists who claim to be racialists (apparently, it is a better term) make the argument that there is a difference in a black person versus a white person. They cite generic info to support this. Thus, they feel because a difference does exist (remember your man/woman argument?), we should be able to ban interracial marriage. A black can get married - to a black woman.

While this twisted rationale plays upon words and notion, it is a very good example of a half-truth argument. If we were to follow your rationale, we could conclude that these people opposed to interracial marriage are in fact NOT biggots.