AL Supreme Court orders probate judges not to license same sex marriages

[bedstuy]

This is a silly argument.

A bathroom is a public accommodation and most people justifiably don't want to use a bathroom with the opposite sex.  It's perfectly rational to cater to that large majority of the population.  And, it's an all or nothing thing for each particular bathroom, either it's sex segregated or it isn't.   

A marriage is for two people.  There is no sharing of marriage between people.  There is no zero sum game where same-sex marriages change the nature of opposite sex marriage.     

And, legally, you can create a large bathroom that caters to both sexes, if you would like.  Besides, there's no deprivation if someone who is comfortable using such all gender bathroom uses a sex-segregated bathroom. 

So, this is just a stupid argument.

[bedstuy]

CJK, Race is treated with strict scrutiny, sex is not.  And, it's different.  A black woman and a white woman are not different in any relevant way such as to justify segregated bathrooms.  Men and Women are different.  Everyone agrees on that.  You're wrong.  And, your analogy doesn't work

And, you can build your own private bathroom however you want.  You can't get a same-sex marriage in certain states.  Stop being a dumb-dumb.

A marriage is for two people.  There is no sharing of marriage between people.  There is no zero sum game where same-sex marriages change the nature of opposite sex marriage.     

And, legally, you can create a large bathroom that caters to both sexes, if you would like.  Besides, there's no deprivation if someone who is comfortable using such all gender bathroom uses a sex-segregated bathroom. 

So, this is just a stupid argument.

There are those opposed to SSM who would dispute that, tho certainly that is what civil marriage is primarily about these days.  I would agree with you that same-sex marriage does not change the nature of opposite sex marriage.

However, the bathroom analogy isn't a good one as we don't have a situation where everyone isn't provided access to a bathroom for their gender.  (Unless you're going to argue we have more than two genders by using a definition not based on physical attributes.)

Well, those people can have any opinion they want.  Legally speaking though, they're wrong.  It's a decision between two people and the government doesn't evaluate their fitness for marriage or let a panel of their peers vote on it.

[bedstuy]

Let's take my analogy to a ridiculous extreme: desegregating public showers. Right now you, me, and everybody else on the planet agrees that this would cause the world to end. Just like the vast majority of the southern whites thought that the world would end if racial segregation was abolished and the vast majority of people believed that gays were sick freaks. Yet I've personally seen no scientific evidence to substantiate this.

If society and media relentlessly portrayed such showers as being a routine, mundane manner instead of a taboo sexual fantasy and emphasized that males acting on their instincts were low class scum, you could plausibly argue that the situation would be no different than women wearing skimpy and provocative clothing in our everyday lives. In 1900 bear arms were considered to be utterly scandalous, and modern bikinis simply unimaginable. The only countries today that actually protect women in this regard are Muslim.

This is the door you are opening by mindlessly cheering the end of thousands of years of gender restrictions on marriage. Nobody in the 1960s civil rights movement had the faintest idea that their activities would later be used to justify homosexual marriage.

So, are you against the reforms of the civil rights movement?

That's the fatal flaw with these slippery slope arguments.  I guess society can never, ever give anyone rights or ease up on any social restriction or taboo.  We can't legalize birth control because it will lead to legalizing bestiality or whatever.  It's an insane position.

[bedstuy]

Even if the court had done nothing the racial restrictions would have eventually have been abolished. It would have been better to do that than traumatize both races.

Separate but equal has been vilified over the years but it is a lot more nuanced than its critics let on.

The traditional marriage they espouse has a definition of marriage based on property.  Clearly men can only be owners and women can only be the owned.

Same-sex marriage is as bad as race mixing and women's rights!!!

[bedstuy]

Wulfric, are you also in favor of banning straight marriage?  Because, straight marriage lead to gay marriage which you think will lead to incest, cats and dogs living together and mass hysteria.  Therefore, syllogistically straight marriage leads to incest.  Check and mate.   

Let's be clear, you can't just assert if one thing is legally allowed, everything else will therefore also be allowed.  Unless you rationally connect the two things, it's a slippery slope fallacy.

The core difference here is that homosexuality is a "sexual orientation."  Previously, it was a social taboo and people didn't even consider the idea.  But, today every respected expert and most Americans believe that homosexuality is a sexual orientation.  Most people also agree that homosexuality is normal and harmless and nothing to be ashamed about. 

That is why the gay rights movement has achieved what it has.  It's not that gay activists think homosexuality is a sinful perversion or mental illness and all sinful perversions and mental illnesses are just dandy.  Nobody is winning this argument by saying, "everything should be legal, regardless of whether it's morally repugnant or harmful to society."  Nor is anyone winning this by saying, "gender is irrelevant to everything in life and all gender specific parts of society must be destroyed! "

So, these hypothetical arguments are ridiculous.  Incest is harmful, perverted and it's not a sexual orientation.  There is no incest rights movement swooping in to change our minds.  It's stupid.  And, it's a ridiculous line drawing problem as well.  Why is gay marriage the one thing that will lead to this parade of horrible stuff?  Why wasn't it legalizing cohabitation or divorce or birth control? 

And, we've had gay marriage in the US for over a decade, has anything bad happened?  No.  For that matter, we've had recognition of domestic partnerships in cities like San Francisco and New York for a long time.  That hasn't spread of city-wide recognition of incest or city ordinances banning gender separated bathrooms.

This is about a battle of ideas.  If you think homosexuality is morally equivalent to incest, let's have that argument.  I guarantee you, I'll win that argument and you'll look like a bigoted moron.  If you think homosexuality is morally wrong, let's have the argument.  If you think homosexuality is a choice and not a sexual orientation, let's have the argument.

But don't give me that song and dance about "statistical noise" and slippery slopes.  If you concede there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, you can't say it will lead to legalizing problematic things. 

[bedstuy]

In what state is it illegal to have gender-neutral bathrooms if an owner so decides?

In what state/city will you get in serious trouble if you go into the "wrong" restroom, as long as all you do is use the bathroom and leave?

How is this in any way comparable to gay marriage, which is not allowed under any circumstance in 16(?) states?

Because they won't accept civil unions even if they give the same benefits as marriage. They want a full blown redefinition of what marriage has been. They want society to stamp it's moral approval on their lifestyle instead of mere tolerance.

The statistical reality that blacks commit vastly higher crime rates than whites did not stop racial integration and the statistical reality of rampant disease among gays has not stopped calls for gay marriage. So why is everybody here so confident that "common sense" will prevail on all these other issues?

Oh boy.