As I said, I wasn't looking for responses to this admittedly incomplete list of concerns.

But since you seem to be game to continue with the specifics – INSTEAD of simply acknowledging its more complex an issue than simply “It's a private matter. It's a civil right” – I'll respond again, to just some of your post.

The most amazing thing is this first response, indicating that you have virtually NO ability to be objective about these things.

I'll look at the second part of that thought first.

So, a “bond between two people” is something “positive,” but a bond between MORE than two people “hurts people???”

And you have the balls to say the opponents of gay marriage are “putting forth their own agenda?!?!?!?!”

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Do you think some of the opponents of gay marriage oppose it because THEY simply think it “hurts people?”

They do.

Do you think that polygamists think that polygamy “hurts people?”

News flash for N.B.!!: Polygamist =/= sadist. Polygamists DO NOT think that their polygamy hurts ANYONE.

Way to COMPLETELY put forth you own, subjective value system - while simultaneously accusing anyone who doesn't agree with YOUR value system of having an inappropriate moral agenda.

Nick, you posts and your commercial writing indicate that you are a very bright guy.

But if this thread shows anything, it shows that you are a hypocrite, incapable of objectively seeing ANY view but your own, and also largely incapable (or just unwilling) of cogently explaining or supporting your highly personal and completely subjective views.

Sorry to inform you, Nick, but you have met the enemy and it is you.

Oh and FYI: Allowing gay marriage DOES INDEED open the door to polygamy, and other currently non-conventional marriages.

Can you LOGICALLY explain the significant and dispositive distinction that indicates why a private consentual matter between 2 people is more valid than the same private, consentual matter between 3, 4, 5 or more people?

I don't think you can. If it's OK for two men to do, why isn't it OK for one man and two women to do?

I don't need to go through all of the rest of your responses so, I'll just touch upon some of the clear, concise and uncontrovertible logic you've brought to the table:

_______

Whow. I'm a bit flustered with the amount of information you've supplied there, in support of your argument.

Yeah…. You don't simply have an agenda that YOU'RE just trying to ram through.

No. You've got a whole HOST of logical arguments on your side…. *sarcastic cough*

Certainly. But doesn't society have a legitimate interest in keeping the divorce rate low? Divorce is expensive to the society as a whole (our tax dollars build courthouses and pay judges and lawyers to deal with it) and largely detrimental – to the participants and certainly to children – involved. So, this is still a significant issue.

…

True, but if we have an opportunity to maybe legislate even ONE significant, identifiable cause of harm to the interest of children, shouldn't we avail ourselves of it?

…

Because how you determine the legitimacy of a gay marriage would necessarily be different than for a heterosexual marriage (see my questions regarding “consummation” above). How do you deal with these new issues?

I did raise these – and others which you are still actively avoiding – pages ago. It's a shame you spend so much money on computers for digital audio yet your browser STILL can't even navigate back to all the posts that are convenient for you to ignore.

If I thought it was just you, I guess THEN I'd be shocked by your imperious and closed- minded attitude towards anything that you just don't agree with. :rolleyes:


THIS is the BEST, though:

Followed by:

HA!!!!!!!!

But when EIGHT people want to get married – WELL, THAT is a “hurtful thing” right?!?!?!?!?!

Right?

Dude, if MUTLTIPLE people want to get married, why isn't it a “a free country, simple as that. A civil right and nothing else matters” THEN???

Man, if you don't feel like a COMPLETE hypocrite, clinging to your own personal views - regardless of what anyone else says or shows you – I'm not sure what else to say but: Good luck to you.

Okay Knife, you win. We can't have gay marriages, because it would mean that anything else you can think of is also acceptable.

What an idiot I am not to have seen that. :p

Knife, although I do see your point, your argument fails for me in the following way: you pretty much equate gay marriage with opening the flood gates for a whole host of anti-social behaviors. I think the point was well made earlier that societal norms ebb and flow over time - cultural acceptance of homosexual behavior has certainly varied over the centuries. Your logic as presented, however, would indicate that even hetrosexual marriage (just marriage itself) would lead, in its "worst" example, to poligamy. I certainly know that wasn't the point you are trying to make, but if you read your post carefully (and I did) the same argument could be made for traditional matrimony. It is very possible to be "for" gay marriage and not be for poligamy. Why? Because that's how I feel.

Obviously, I fall on the side of "allowing" the legal recognition of a gay union. That doesn't mean that I don't understand, both on an intellectual and visceral level, the issues that our more conservative posters have with the concept. I don't think you are wrong for your beliefs - they are, after all, your beliefs. I would just ask that those who are so angered by the idea of gay marriage look beyond the media portrayal of the most extreme forms of behavior (whether conservative or liberal) and understand the reality of the individual in each case. I, perhaps like you, hate having my point of view represented in the media by some cartoon character (whether it be that hypocritical maggot Rush Limbaugh or that foolish idiot Jesse Jackson) - there are no lack of fools on either side of any issue. But I do have gay friends (and, for that matter, Christian conservative friends) who's main goal in life is NOT to thumb their nose at society, but to have a peaceful, loving existence. Can I argue with that stance? No. Do I feel as if I personally should deprive them from the same ultimate expression of love and partnership as a heterosexual couple? No. All the other arguments, the examples of more outrageous forms of anti-social behavior fall by the wayside, because we are, in my opinion, talking about just this one issue. Not poligamy. Not the CIA. Not conspiracy theories.

Respectfully, that's just my point of view.

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I've said. Glad to see you've taken a moment to understand my point :rolleyes:


Geez, could you come up with a MORE obtuse evasive manuever????

There is precious little I've said in this entire thread that you didn't either 1) completely ignore, or 2) respond to with a perfunctory, summary dismissal like "becausee it's wrong" or "that's the way it is."

Just tell me what you want me to post and I will, Knife! After five pages you finally listed what you thought were stumbling blocks, I answered how I feel against each one (against your advice), and now I really have nothing left to say.

I understand your point that this is opening up the floodgates to all kinds of things that one could argue are also civil rights, but I happen to find that groundless. It also changes the subject, because it assumes that legal precedence is the only factor in legislation.

Is there anything else you want me to add? If you want me to argue with every one of your traps, like how I'm a hypocrite for seeing a distinction between gay marriages and pologamy, well, I've already been sucked into an incredibly OTT argument and I'm just not going to go there.

Maybe it's almost time to give this a rest?

I think that this site is taking a big turn downhill with so much talk about sexuality. Yet, for some reason our forum leader doesn't have a problem wih the heavy emphasis on such topics. I come here for music, audio, and da7 type topics, etc. and I think that this Gay Bashing topic is a huge diversion making DA7.com more of a bad daytime tv show forum. This is just my opinion, but I find it a big waste--a kind of white trash dumpster forum, when it goes off in this direction. So does anyone have a secret kick drum mixing method? --to make it super punchy and cut through with clarity on even a wall of sound type of song arrangement...?

I absolutely did NOT make this argument. You obviously did not read carefully enough.

What I DID say is: the idea that allowing gay marriage might lead to the necessity to recognize other, non-conventional marriages, is BUT ONE of several concerns that a mature, logical person involved in the debate should address.

Whether you would like to argue that "my logic as presented" would lead to polygamy, you have no grounds.

This situation has risen above the theoretical and is currently "in the laboratory" - with clearly identifiable results. We've had heterosexual marriage for literally THOUSANDS of years (about 250 in the United States) and still, in 2004, in the United States, polygamy is NOT condoned.

So, theorize all you want about how my argument "might" fail. The FACT is, it doesn't and it hasn't.

That's fine. That is where YOU draw the line.

We all have our own views on these things.

The point is, however, how will YOU successfully draw the line on polygamy AFTER you've allowed gay marriage?

Do you see my point?

What do you say to the polygamist, when - in support of gay marriage - you've said "the institution of marriage is a private matter, between consenting adults?"

What is your argument, next year, that gets the polygamist to say: "You are right. That is a valid distinction. Clearly, the privacy enjoyed between two gay individuals is logically distinct from the privacy between me and three women. We SHOULD be treated differently and not allowed to marry."

Let me know what that argument is. What distinction do you hold up to the polygamist, that lets him/her be satisfied they SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry, and go away?

Why would you assume I'm against gay marriage - or even polygamy?

Nothing I've said in here has anything to do with what I think the outcome of this discourse should be. I've never given my view on ANY of these issues.

I'm just trying to point out the issues - while some other folks say "It's NOTHING but personal/religious agendas." It's NOT nothing but that. Its a serious issue that needs to be explored - in depth.

Again, I have NOT said I am for or against gay marriage - OR polygamy - I am only "for" talking about substantive issues and real, logical arguments - on BOTH sides, to try to hammer out a resolution.

Well, we ARE only talking about one thing, but again, it is unrealistic to say we do not have to conern ourselves with the apparent and unavoidable "fallout" of that issue.

It would be very nice to be able to simply say "Today's topic IS NOT polygamy. It's gay marriage. We will deal with the question of polygamy if and when we come to it."

Indeed, there is a colorable argument that no matter WHAT the obvious ancillary effects of allowing gay marriage, handling these issue on a piecemeal basis like that IS the best thing to do.

But when folks opposed to gay marriage ask the question I asked above (i.e. how do you stop the polygamist, if you allow the gay marriage on the basis that "marriage is a private matter and the government should not intervene"), that is a legtitamately posed concern. And I think it needs to be addressed.

Its the classic "slippery slope" argument and there is at least some validity to it.

And it was respectfully conveyed and respectfully received. I still think it leaves unanswered questions though. Not necessarily unanswerable, but unanswered, so far.

This again, kind of says it all:

I didn't say you were a hypocrite for seeing a distinction.

Have you actually read and tried to truly absorb ANYTHING I've posted in here?


You're a hypocrite for STARTING this thread by saying OTHER folks are opposed to gay marriage just because of their moral agendas - and THEN summarily announcing YOUR own subjective agenda regarding polygamy (i.e. it "hurts people").

Have your views - on polygamy, gay marriage, the death penalty - whatever. It's ALLLL good.

But damn, if you can't see even a TEEENY WEEENY issue in:

1) just blurting out YOU THINK polygamy "hurts people"

- while SIMULTANEOUSLY

2) lambasting folks who say THEY THINK gay marriage "hurts people" for "only trying to push their own agenda."

I really don't know what to say.


I mean, walk the walk if you are gonna talk the talk.

Either its OK to announce your completely personal views on topics like unconventional marriage - or its NOT.


Like I said in my fiorst response many, many pages ago (but you also probably didn't really read THAT post, either) you let me know when you want to stop.

I kind of live for this stuff - philosophical debates (betcha couldn't tell... .

No offense Paul, but this thread was posted as being off topic, which it obviously is. There is no mandate issued by DA7.com that says this thread is required reading. You are always welcome to ignore it. And, by the relatively unprecedented number of posts on this topic, I would venture to guess that it actually is of interest to many of this forum's members. I am enjoying reading lively debate amongst people who's musical opinions I have grown to respect - I think it adds depth and character to this website.

So, my suggestion to you is.... get yourself an AKG D112 next time you record your bass drum. In mixing, add a little 1 - 3K to give it some "point". And please try not to marry a man.

That's right, Paul, it's marked OT very clearly. But I really don't care about that part of your post; if Justin or Maric want to stop this thread, they have every right to do so, and until then I for one will go on as long as I'm enjoying the banter.

What does irritate me a lot is that it's hard to imagine a nastier thing to say than your "white trash dumpster forum" comment. It's not heated arguments that lead to forums going up in flames, it's when someone comes along like you just did and insults people. That's when the feelings turn ugly.