DVD Talk
Why is same sex marriage so bad? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Why is same sex marriage so bad?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Ronnie Dobbs
10-31-08, 12:46 PM
Whats the big deal about same sex marriage? Two people of the same gender living together? Its not the worst possible thing that could happen. Plus I don't really care much about my neighbors personal lives since I have my own to deal with. So then whats the big deal?

Birrman54
10-31-08, 12:48 PM
people are crazy

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 12:48 PM
Gay sex is icky!

Quack
10-31-08, 12:50 PM
Cause people are ignorant.

Baron Of Hell
10-31-08, 12:50 PM
I have done a lot of research on gay sex by watching the L Word. I have concluded that that hot female on female sex is a good thing for everybody.

Brack
10-31-08, 12:50 PM
Because people aren't smart enough to care about things that actually matter.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 12:52 PM
Christians are scared. I honestly don't care about the legality of same sex marriage. I'd actually rather the government wasn't involved in marriage at all. But I've talked to Christians who believe that legal gay marriage will lead to forces church's to perform gay marriage, even if they are against it for religious reasons. They believe that the school's will teach their kids the homosexuality is ok, even if they are against it for moral reasons.

I actually got into a debate with my pastor about this (he's scared of the above).

kvrdave
10-31-08, 12:57 PM
You mean, why are the people who won't let their kids dress up for Halloween because it is a tool of Satan embrace gay marriage?

Not sure.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 12:59 PM
You mean, why are the people who won't let their kids dress up for Halloween because it is a tool of Satan embrace gay marriage?

Not sure.

My son will be a skeleton.. What does that mean?

Walker Boh
10-31-08, 01:01 PM
You're embracing the holiday as a tool of the pro-X-ray extremists.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 01:02 PM
My son will be a skeleton.. What does that mean?


Less flesh to be burned in the eternal damnation of hellfire, I suppose.

I'll be a cheerleader. I have the ghey!

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:05 PM
Christians are scared. I honestly don't care about the legality of same sex marriage. I'd actually rather the government wasn't involved in marriage at all. But I've talked to Christians who believe that legal gay marriage will lead to forces church's to perform gay marriage, even if they are against it for religious reasons. They believe that the school's will teach their kids the homosexuality is ok, even if they are against it for moral reasons.

I actually got into a debate with my pastor about this (he's scared of the above).

He is aware that no church in America has ever been forced to perform any marriage, for any reason, correct?

Larry C.
10-31-08, 01:08 PM
I'm not touching this one with my pole..... 10 foot pole that is.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:09 PM
Because people equate marriage to the wrong things. As you said in the OP, "living together." Well, living together isn't illegal in any way.

Then people talk about sex. Also legal.

Then people talk about visiting people in the hospital. Well, sounds like a piss poor hospital policy.

What it comes down to is fully accepting homosexual partnerships as fully equivalent to heterosexual ones and making it unlawful in many cases to argue against the former. This conflicts with a lot of religious views.

Granting all the same rights via a "Civil Union" is not enough for the proponents of gay "marriage."

In my opinion, all "marriages" would be civil unions under the law, but that's not where we are today. So some people think it's just semantics (and are happy to throw out examples of marriage that are counter to marriage "ideals" or childbearing ability) and that it's easier to just make it "marriage" for everyone and let everyone have the same special relationship. People who feel that the union of a man and a woman is a unique bond within the human experience feel otherwise.

So there is a conflict between the law and the relationship that is difficult to reconcile. Far more people are willing to grant the same rights, while retaining the sanctity of the term "marriage." To others, that is outright bigotry.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 01:09 PM
He is aware that no church in America has ever been forced to perform any marriage, for any reason, correct?

Maybe after I explained it to him. :)

I also explained that Supreme Court has upheld the church's right to practice religious beliefs even when they appear to contradict the law. For instance, being able to hire only people of the same faith, or being able to hire only a man as a Sr. pastor, etc.

My sister and her husband were actually denied marriage by a Catholic church because my sister wasn't Catholic.

darkside
10-31-08, 01:09 PM
Cause people are ignorant.

This is about as good as anything I could come up with. I think a big problem is marriage the religious ceremony is considered the same as marriage the legal status. I think these are two separate things. If people think churches should block gay marriage they should take that up with their church. If if is considered a sin your church has all the right in the world to not marry gays. However, we have separation of church and state so going to get a marriage license at the court house should have no such restriction.

For example. My wife and I are atheists, but had no trouble at all getting married at the court house. If it is ok for someone like us going straight to hell when we die to get married it should be ok for any other couple of sinners with valid photo id.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 01:10 PM
In my opinion, all "marriages" would be civil unions under the law, but that's not where we are today.

My belief as well.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 01:11 PM
Marriage is bad period. ;)

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 01:11 PM
This is about as good as anything I could come up with. I think a big problem is marriage the religious ceremony is considered the same as marriage the legal status. I think these are two separate things. If people think churches should block gay marriage they should take that up with their church. If if is considered a sin your church has all the right in the world to not marry gays. However, we have separation of church and state so going to get a marriage license at the court house should have no such restriction.

For example. My wife and I are atheists, but had no trouble at all getting married at the court house. If it is ok for someone like us going straight to hell when we die to get married it should be ok for any other couple of sinners with valid photo id.

Amen!
;)

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:14 PM
I think a big problem is marriage the religious ceremony is considered the same as marriage the legal status.

Yup. That's a huge part of it. Not all of it of course. People of different religions and beliefs have been getting "married" for ages.

There's more to it than that.

I would imagine your typical heterosexual cave man was really excited to get married to a beautiful cave bride and they called it marriage. And the homosexual cave men were perfectly happy to make passionate gay love without the need to be called "married" by the village.

But when the village starts to tax couples differently and tells Og that he can't visit Grog in the medical cave because they aren't married, Og gets kind of pissy.

So then the medical cave can either change policy and let Og in, or the village can tell all the kids "Look, Og and Grog are just like your mommies and daddies, now go along and play and figure out who you like more, the kids with the pee pees or the ta tas. When you decide we'll throw flowers and make a cave painting to commemorate your love."

Okay, I'm going to get myself into trouble here.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 01:14 PM
Marriage is bad period. ;)
My belief as well.

Shannon Nutt
10-31-08, 01:15 PM
Cause people are ignorant.

Bingo. But remember you're living in a country where half the population doesn't believe in evolution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 01:16 PM
My belief as well.

I think my wife might read DVDTalk....

I'm just sayin'.

:)

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:22 PM
My belief as well.

Pretty much Paul's stance as well. Can't say he didn't warn us. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:26 PM
"Look, Og and Grog are just like your mommies and daddies, now go along and play and figure out who you like more, the kids with the pee pees or the ta tas. When you decide we'll throw flowers and make a cave painting to commemorate your love."

-rolleyes- You're an idiot.

They're cave men for crying out loud.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:26 PM
Yup. That's a huge part of it. Not all of it of course. People of different religions and beliefs have been getting "married" for ages.

There's more to it than that.

I would imagine your typical heterosexual cave man was really excited to get married to a beautiful cave bride and they called it marriage. And the homosexual cave men were perfectly happy to make passionate gay love without the need to be called "married" by the village.

But when the village starts to tax couples differently and tells Og that he can't visit Grog in the medical cave because they aren't married, Og gets kind of pissy.

So then the medical cave can either change policy and let Og in, or the village can tell all the kids "Look, Og and Grog are just like your mommies and daddies, now go along and play and figure out who you like more, the kids with the pee pees or the ta tas. When you decide we'll throw flowers and make a cave painting to commemorate your love."

Okay, I'm going to get myself into trouble here.

What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't think it was possible to have negative respect for someone, but here we are.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:27 PM
Just a ludicrous example with little merit, carry on. I'm sorry that you're not open to understanding my views and understand the resentment.

These threads always deliver.

Dr Mabuse
10-31-08, 01:28 PM
Lawsuits have been filed trying to force churches to marry, and/or have 'same sex' couples marriages in the churches or on their property in the US. In a few states. To my knowledge they lost the suits so far.

But as with all forms of legal activism with the assistance of 'activist' judiciary, it's only a matter of time until a precedent is set. Might take a few years but it will happen. Then more lawsuits to force churches to not 'discriminate' or do some sort of 'hate' crap or some such nonsense will happen.

Similar crap has been going on in Europe for a few years. Two gay priests defied a Bishop's orders, and the rules of the church, and had their own gay marriage in a church this year in Britain.

The same crap will happen here.

I wonder if this stuff won't finally be enough of a cause to have a federal amendment passed on marriage, that's what it will take to put this stuff to rest.

Than maybe 'legal unions' or 'civil unions' or something will finally happen, with complete exclusion from normal/actual marriage and church related issues.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:28 PM
Just a ludicrous example with little merit, carry on.

Whatever, Thor. I'll always remember your gleeful "I get to vote for Prop 8" comment.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:30 PM
Lawsuits have been filed trying to force churches to marry, and/or have 'same sex' couples marriages in the churches or on their property in the US. In a few states. To my knowledge they lost the suits so far.

But as with all forms of legal activism with the assistance of 'activist' judiciary, it's only a matter of time until a precedent is set. Might take a few years but it will happen. Then more lawsuits to force churches to not 'discriminate' or do some sort of 'hate' crap or some such nonsense will happen.

Similar crap has been going on in Europe for a few years. Two gay priests defied a Bishop's orders, and the rules of the church, and had their own gay marriage in a church this year in Britain.

The same crap will happen here.

Um, no, it won't, because Europe doesn't have the First Amendment. Churches have never been compelled to perform any marriage.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:30 PM
Added to my post above. In any case, yes... Prop 8 is a doozie. I think California voters already asked for such a thing once before. It also does not exclude civil unions, which I SUPPORT.

Groucho
10-31-08, 01:34 PM
The problem with doing a "Civil Union" instead of a "Marriage" is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that specifically deal with "spouse". If we want same-sex couples to have all the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, we have two choices:

1. Change one law and open up marriage to same-sex couples.
2. Go line by line through every other law and change the wording from "spouse" to "spouse or civil partner".

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:35 PM
Added to my post above. In any case, yes... Prop 8 is a doozie. I think California voters already asked for such a thing once before. It also does not exclude civil unions, which I SUPPORT.

http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/roberts/234/album9361BJ8410m.jpg

sracer
10-31-08, 01:35 PM
Christians are scared. I honestly don't care about the legality of same sex marriage. I'd actually rather the government wasn't involved in marriage at all. But I've talked to Christians who believe that legal gay marriage will lead to forces church's to perform gay marriage, even if they are against it for religious reasons. They believe that the school's will teach their kids the homosexuality is ok, even if they are against it for moral reasons.

I actually got into a debate with my pastor about this (he's scared of the above).
Their fears are legitimate and well founded.

But those fears should also apply equally to all aspects of society that engage in unbiblical behavior. But most Christians pick-n-choose those "safe" sins to focus on. And ultimately they need to understand that the world is not Christian nor is this country, and that all that we individual Christians can and are called to do is to love God, love others, and live our life according to His word.

Personally, the legality of homosexual marriage has no bearing on how I live my life and practice my faith.

Venusian
10-31-08, 01:37 PM
The problem with doing a "Civil Union" instead of a "Marriage" is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that specifically deal with "spouse". If we want same-sex couples to have all the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, we have two choices:

1. Change one law and open up marriage to same-sex couples.
2. Go line by line through every other law and change the wording from "spouse" to "spouse or civil partner".

couldn't you make the civil union law change the defition of spouse to include a civil partner?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:37 PM
The problem with doing a "Civil Union" instead of a "Marriage" is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that specifically deal with "spouse". If we want same-sex couples to have all the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, we have two choices:

1. Change one law and open up marriage to same-sex couples.
2. Go line by line through every other law and change the wording from "spouse" to "spouse or civil partner".

Find/replace is hard. :(

Alternative: Create a civil union status and specify that people joined by such unions are granted the same rights as a spouse. Too much to ask? What would your view of that be, Tracer?

Dr Mabuse
10-31-08, 01:37 PM
Um, no, it won't, because Europe doesn't have the First Amendment. Churches have never been compelled to perform any marriage.

You think no form of any new law could be used to skirt around that?

You have a good point. So you don't think some kind of 'discrimination' stuff couldn't be built around new law and precedents?

History reveals some amazing possibilities right here in the US.

There was a time when the President laughed about the Christian bible and teachings being removed from schools saying it was impossible, first amendment and whatnot.

Social conditioning and new laws can work miracles.

Dr Mabuse
10-31-08, 01:38 PM
The problem with doing a "Civil Union" instead of a "Marriage" is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that specifically deal with "spouse". If we want same-sex couples to have all the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, we have two choices:

1. Change one law and open up marriage to same-sex couples.
2. Go line by line through every other law and change the wording from "spouse" to "spouse or civil partner".

Most of Europe managed to do this without any of the headache you imply. Or maybe some headache but it was doable.

They are mostly a 'civil union' situation.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:39 PM
Alternative: Create a civil union status and specify that people joined by such unions are granted the same rights as a spouse. Too much to ask? What would your view of that be, Tracer?

Go ask the homosexuals of New Jersey how that's working out for them.

Groucho
10-31-08, 01:40 PM
couldn't you make the civil union law change the defition of spouse to include a civil partner?That's a good idea, but I fear the "semantics police" would march on the capital. "Spouse is a sacred word, a tradition for thousands of years, blah blah blah".

Thor's alternative isn't bad.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
Go ask the homosexuals of New Jersey how that's working out for them.

I've taken too much time off work to fly out to Jersey today and ask where the homosexuals are. Maybe you can fill me in because I haven't read anything at all on the matter. I gather it hasn't gone over too well and I'd like to hear why because my opinion on the subject is strong but far from rigid.

spainlinx0
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
Because you know what gay marriage leads to? People marrying dogs! You want your neighbor to marry your dog? Or how about he marries a whole kennel. Polygamist beastiality! Is that the kind of country you want to live in? It's not enough that we got one of them coloreds about to ruin our great nation, but now you want to let some queers put on a dress and disgrace my me and my wife's perfect kid-shitting union? If a gay guy wants to get married let him marry a lesbian. Maybe then they can both learn about God.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
Churches are not going to be forced to perform certain marriages. That would a blatent violation of the free exercise clause of the Constitution. There is no credible organization pushing for such a thing and no credible legal thinker or jurist gives serious consideration that such a thing could happen.

Groucho
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
At any rate, it's stupid to have two legal versions of the same thing and it only results in loopholes and problems down the line. We should do one or the other:

1. Extend legal marriage to same-sex couples.
2. Convert legal marriage to civil unions for all couples, and extend it to include same-sex couples.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
You think no form of any new law could be used to skirt around that?

Sure, a constitutional amendment.

Venusian
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
That's a good idea, but I fear the "semantics police" would march on the capital. "Spouse is a sacred word, a tradition for thousands of years, blah blah blah".

Thor's alternative isn't bad.

yeah, i guess if the word marriage is sacred, they'd argue that spouse is sacred as well.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:42 PM
Churches are not going to be forced to perform certain marriages. That would a blatent violation of the free exercise clause of the Constitution. There is no credible organization pushing for such a thing and no credible legal thinker or jurist gives serious consideration that such a thing could happen.

Thank you.

Groucho
10-31-08, 01:43 PM
Because you know what gay marriage leads to? People marrying dogs! You want your neighbor to marry your dog? Or how about he marries a whole kennel. Polygamist beastiality! Is that the kind of country you want to live in? It's not enough that we got one of them coloreds about to ruin our great nation, but now you want to let some queers put on a dress and disgrace my me and my wife's perfect kid-shitting union? If a gay guy wants to get married let him marry a lesbian. Maybe then they can both learn about God.Wow, you continue to go over the line. First, your anti-woman rant, now this? Now you're on my ignore list FOR SURE.

spainlinx0
10-31-08, 01:45 PM
Marriage is so sacred that some people are exercising their sacred and Godly duty multiple times.

spainlinx0
10-31-08, 01:45 PM
Wow, you continue to go over the line. First, your anti-woman rant, now this? Now you're on my ignore list FOR SURE.

I'm just saying what good is a woman that can't make a decent wholesome all American apple pie?

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:47 PM
I've taken too much time off work to fly out to Jersey today and ask where the homosexuals are. Maybe you can fill me in because I haven't read anything at all on the matter. I gather it hasn't gone over too well and I'd like to hear why because my opinion on the subject is strong but far from rigid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/nyregion/13civil.html

http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcr/curc.html

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2008/02/report_civil_union_law_fails_t.html

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31463.html

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:48 PM
I googled around and am reading that first link you posted right now. I'll get back to you.

The first thing that stands out to me is this quote:
“This is uncharted territory, and we’re talking about an area of undeveloped law,” said J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo, director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights.

I think that's an important point. This is not a small issue. It's a monumental one and one that is very much ingrained in our society. My initial response would be that it's easy to change some wording, but perhaps taking such an easy route does not do justice to the gravity of the decision and the huge step that this is for America. It might take some time to work out all the issues before the system is truly just. But that's a fight worth fighting to get it right. Indeed, granting (or continuing) a full "marriage" status in California would not eliminate many of these same headaches.

For now I stand by my proposal on the previous page:
Create a civil union status and specify that people joined by such unions are granted the same rights as a spouse.

Does it solve every issue for these couples with a simple sentence? No. There are lots of forms and policies etc out there that need to be worked out. I will keep reading these articles though, thanks for the links.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 01:48 PM
Churches are not going to be forced to perform certain marriages. That would a blatent violation of the free exercise clause of the Constitution. There is no credible organization pushing for such a thing and no credible legal thinker or jurist gives serious consideration that such a thing could happen.

Thank you.

Ronnie Dobbs
10-31-08, 01:51 PM
Yup. That's a huge part of it. Not all of it of course. People of different religions and beliefs have been getting "married" for ages.

There's more to it than that.

I would imagine your typical heterosexual cave man was really excited to get married to a beautiful cave bride and they called it marriage. And the homosexual cave men were perfectly happy to make passionate gay love without the need to be called "married" by the village.

But when the village starts to tax couples differently and tells Og that he can't visit Grog in the medical cave because they aren't married, Og gets kind of pissy.

So then the medical cave can either change policy and let Og in, or the village can tell all the kids "Look, Og and Grog are just like your mommies and daddies, now go along and play and figure out who you like more, the kids with the pee pees or the ta tas. When you decide we'll throw flowers and make a cave painting to commemorate your love."

Okay, I'm going to get myself into trouble here.

I took an ancient studies class you do realize that cavemen aka cromags use to rape women and incest was rampant. I'm pretty sure that sodomy occured as well they didn't have developed minds. A big reason a lot died was hundreds of years of incest cause they all lived in one area so their genetics were very similar. So there was no marriage just a lot of raping.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 01:55 PM
Um, no, it won't, because Europe doesn't have the First Amendment. Churches have never been compelled to perform any marriage.

It probably would make those opposed feel better if they quit filing lawsuits, though.

Baron Of Hell
10-31-08, 01:55 PM
I took an ancient studies class you do realize that cavemen aka cromags use to rape women and incest was rampant. I'm pretty sure that sodomy occured as well they didn't have developed minds. A big reason a lot died was hundreds of years of incest cause they all lived in one area so their genetics were very similar. So there was no marriage just a lot of raping.

I thought they died out because the smart humans killed them off.

sracer
10-31-08, 01:56 PM
Churches are not going to be forced to perform certain marriages. That would a blatent violation of the free exercise clause of the Constitution. There is no credible organization pushing for such a thing and no credible legal thinker or jurist gives serious consideration that such a thing could happen.
While you are technically correct that churches aren't going to be forced to perform certain marriages, the churches will be required to acknowledge/recognize those marriages.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 01:57 PM
I took an ancient studies class you do realize that cavemen aka cromags use to rape women and incest was rampant. I'm pretty sure that sodomy occured as well they didn't have developed minds. A big reason a lot died was hundreds of years of incest cause they all lived in one area so their genetics were very similar. So there was no marriage just a lot of raping.

Then I will surely vote against prop 14B, "Bond measure to promote mass rape."

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:57 PM
I think that's an important point. This is not a small issue. It's a monumental one and one that is very much ingrained in our society. My initial response would be that it's easy to change some wording, but perhaps taking such an easy route does not do justice to the gravity of the decision and the huge step that this is for America. It might take some time to work out all the issues before the system is truly just. But that's a fight worth fighting to get it right. Indeed, granting a full "marriage" in California would not eliminate many of these same headaches.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsensical bullshit. There is already a legal institution in place to grant equal rights to gay people. How it is preferable for gay people, the government, and lawyers to have to reeducate the entire population about "civil unions" instead of just letting homosexuals get married?

Gay people have waited and fought long enough without having to listen to glib heterosexuals who don't want us in on your fucking institution claim that the alternative is "worth fighting" for. Worth fighting for for who, exactly?

sherm42
10-31-08, 01:57 PM
It is about intolerance of homosexuals, pure and simple. It is just more accepted today to hate gays and lesbians.

Here is what a trial court had to say in 1959 about interracial marriage:

‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’

The U.S. Supreme Court had a problem with this. (See Loving v. Virgina).

I think that in 50 years, people will look at the issue of gay marriage similarly and wonder how so many people could be so prejudiced.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 01:58 PM
It probably would make those opposed feel better if they quit filing lawsuits, though.

I'll bring that up at the next meeting.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 01:59 PM
While you are technically correct that churches aren't going to be forced to perform certain marriages, the churches will be required to acknowledge/recognize those marriages.

In what way?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 02:00 PM
How it is preferable for gay people, the government, and lawyers to have to reeducate the entire population about "civil unions" instead of just letting homosexuals get married?

What is required to educate people, beyond my one-sentence proposal? It grants all the same rights. End of story.

It requires no more education than educating people on the fact that marriage also includes same-sex couples.

Giantrobo
10-31-08, 02:02 PM
<b>It is just more accepted today to hate gays and lesbians.</b>



How do you figure?

orangecrush
10-31-08, 02:02 PM
Um, no, it won't, because Europe doesn't have the First Amendment. Churches have never been compelled to perform any marriage.
The first amendment hasn't stopped campaign finance reform, the fairness doctrine and other limits to free speech. What makes you think it can't be limited further?

Hokeyboy
10-31-08, 02:03 PM
People who object to same-sex marriages, while claiming your objection is not because of religion? You're not fooling anyone. :p

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 02:05 PM
People who object to same-sex marriages, while claiming your objection is not because of religion? You're not fooling anyone. :p

Not sure who you're talking to. My objection is largely due to religion.

Ranger
10-31-08, 02:05 PM
"You are now civilly unionzed."

Sounds like the UAW.

sherm42
10-31-08, 02:05 PM
How do you figure?

Because people can stand up and outright declare their disapproval of homosexuals and nearly half the population (if not more) would either agree or simply not care. Heck, the president of the United States goes on national TV to say that we need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and only a small segment of the population gets offended.

Put it this way, if a politician stood up today to say they should declare that marriage should only be between people of their own races, most of the country would flip out and that person would be hounded out of office.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 02:05 PM
I took an ancient studies class you do realize that cavemen aka cromags use to rape women and incest was rampant. I'm pretty sure that sodomy occured as well they didn't have developed minds. A big reason a lot died was hundreds of years of incest cause they all lived in one area so their genetics were very similar. So there was no marriage just a lot of raping.

Cromagnon man is genetically no different than modern humans. Their brains were just as developed as ours. They are named because of the region they were found in, assumed to be an ancestor, but aren't. They are us, as opposed to other hominids.

Hokeyboy
10-31-08, 02:06 PM
I think that in 50 years, people will look at the issue of gay marriage similarly and wonder how so many people could be so prejudiced.
I think you're greatly overestimating the ability of the American public to show reason, tolerance, and understanding by exponential hugeness.

wendersfan
10-31-08, 02:06 PM
Gay sex is icky!I'll take your word for it.

Hokeyboy
10-31-08, 02:08 PM
Cromagnon man is genetically no different than modern humans. Their brains were just as developed as ours. They are named because of the region they were found in, assumed to be an ancestor, but aren't. They are us, as opposed to other hominids.
And huzzah! rape and incest yet abounds!! :banana:

Red Dog
10-31-08, 02:08 PM
While you are technically correct that churches aren't going to be forced to perform certain marriages, the churches will be required to acknowledge/recognize those marriages.

What does acknowledgement mean?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 02:10 PM
And huzzah! rape and incest yet abounds!! :banana:
It's hard to argue against it from a purely biological perspective. :)

Hokeyboy
10-31-08, 02:11 PM
What does acknowledgement mean?
Adjacent seats at bake sales? Heaven forbid.

Other than ixnay on the political endorsements, when was the last time churches have been "forced" to recognize anything?

Giantrobo
10-31-08, 02:11 PM
Because people can stand up and outright declare their disapproval of homosexuals and nearly half the population (if not more) would either agree or simply not care. Heck, the president of the United States goes on national TV to say that we need a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and only a small segment of the population gets offended.

Put it this way, if a politician stood up today to say they should declare that marriage should only be between people of their own races, most of the country would flip out and that person would be hounded out of office.

But listen, NOW is a better time in history for Gays than it's ever been. Sure, there's still a looooong way to go on acceptance. But you could say that about Race, Religion, and other issues. But still, Homosexuality is no longer a "Dirty secret not to be mentioned in polite company" or "Only a topic for perverts and pornographers". I mean hey, at least we're to a point in history where we can talk about Gay Marriage and fight for it on a large scale. Could this have happened 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 years ago?

kvrdave
10-31-08, 02:11 PM
I'll bring that up at the next meeting.

:lol:

No you won't. :grunt:

CRM114
10-31-08, 02:13 PM
It is about intolerance of homosexuals, pure and simple. It is just more accepted today to hate gays and lesbians.

Here is what a trial court had to say in 1959 about interracial marriage:

‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’

The U.S. Supreme Court had a problem with this. (See Loving v. Virgina).

I think that in 50 years, people will look at the issue of gay marriage similarly and wonder how so many people could be so prejudiced.

And people wonder why I ridicule religion. Hell, just say God said it and everything is fine. -rolleyes- Like this jackass ever spoke personally with his god.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 02:14 PM
When the SCt decides that the equal protection clause requires Catholic churches in the U.S. to have female priests, then maybe, just maybe, I'll worry that they'll be forced to marry Peter and Paul somewhere down the road.

sherm42
10-31-08, 02:15 PM
But listen, NOW is a better time in history for Gays than it's ever been. Sure, there's still a looooong way to go on acceptance. But you could say that about Race, Religion, and other issues. But still, Homosexuality is no longer a "Dirty secret not to be mentioned in polite company" or "Only a topic for perverts and pornographers". I mean hey, at least we're to a point in history where we can talk about Gay Marriage and fight for it on a large scale. Could this have happened 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 years ago?

Oh, I completely agree. I certainly do not mean to imply that things are horrible now. In fact, the gay marriage issue is truly a crucial turning point in equality and I truly hope that enough people in California realize this to reject prop 8. It appears to just be about on the 50/50 level.

My point is that contrary to the "yes on 8" arguments, it is about intolerance.

darkside
10-31-08, 02:16 PM
It is about intolerance of homosexuals, pure and simple. It is just more accepted today to hate gays and lesbians.

Here is what a trial court had to say in 1959 about interracial marriage:

‘Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’

The U.S. Supreme Court had a problem with this. (See Loving v. Virgina).

I think that in 50 years, people will look at the issue of gay marriage similarly and wonder how so many people could be so prejudiced.

This is why I worry about laws being passed to ban gay marriage. When you look back at US history it is embarrassing to see how ignorant we were and how hard we fought to restrict the freedoms of non whites. We are still suffering from the repercussions of this today. I would hope we would not make the same mistakes again. Eventually the ignorant religious extremists will be pushed aside and we will have to spend many generations undoing their wrongs.

Giantrobo
10-31-08, 02:16 PM
Gay sex is icky!

Not if it means 2 or more hot girls. :p

You see, if the Pro Gay Marriage folks would put Hot Gay Women at the forefront of the fight, you'd get Gay Marriage approved ASAP.

Rosie and Ellen aren't helping the cause. :p

orangecrush
10-31-08, 02:16 PM
Adjacent seats at bake sales? Heaven forbid.

Other than ixnay on the political endorsements, when was the last time churches have been "forced" to recognize anything?
A church practicing church discipline could hypnotically lose a discrimination lawsuit for kicking out a married gay couple for being gay. Many churches that practice church disipline are sued by the former members. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how the state recognition of gay marriage would affect such lawsuits.

Venusian
10-31-08, 02:18 PM
When the SCt decides that the equal protection clause requires Catholic churches in the U.S. to have female priests, then maybe, just maybe, I'll worry that they'll be forced to marry Peter and Paul somewhere down the road.

don't religious institutes have an exemption in their hiring practices? they can discriminate in their hiring, right? or am i mistaken?


the only court cases that come to my mind about this are the ones that forced catholic charities to provide their employees with birth control through their health care plans

CRM114
10-31-08, 02:18 PM
But listen, NOW is a better time in history for Gays than it's ever been. Sure, there's still a looooong way to go on acceptance. But you could say that about Race, Religion, and other issues. But still, Homosexuality is no longer a "Dirty secret not to be mentioned in polite company" or "Only a topic for perverts and pornographers". I mean hey, at least we're to a point in history where we can talk about Gay Marriage and fight for it on a large scale. Could this have happened 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 20 years ago?

Dude, you live in CA.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 02:19 PM
A church practicing church discipline could hypnotically lose a discrimination lawsuit for kicking out a married gay couple for being gay. Many churches that practice church disipline are sued by the former members. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how the state recognition of gay marriage would affect such lawsuits.

Hypnotically? That's about what it would take.

http://dcairns.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/hypnotoad.jpg

Venusian
10-31-08, 02:20 PM
A church practicing church discipline could hypnotically lose a discrimination lawsuit for kicking out a married gay couple for being gay. Many churches that practice church disipline are sued by the former members. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know how the state recognition of gay marriage would affect such lawsuits.

members sue churches they are kicked out of? why? that sounds stupid. any links to these cases? i'd think the courts would toss out the cases

Lord Rick
10-31-08, 02:20 PM
So then the medical cave can either change policy and let Og in...

I and others have already corrected you on this. It's a legal issue. Two unmarried people cannot make medical decisions for one another without a Power of Attorney or similar document. Married people can. It's as simple as that.

No hospital wants legal or PR nightmare of pulling the plug (or attempting to) on somebody based on what a long-time companion says and then having the parents or brother/sister/child go Terry Schiavo on them.

Giantrobo
10-31-08, 02:21 PM
This is why I worry about laws being passed to ban gay marriage. When you look back at US history it is embarrassing to see how ignorant we were and how hard we fought to restrict the freedoms of non whites. We are still suffering from the repercussions of this today. I would hope we would not make the same mistakes again. <b> Eventually the ignorant religious conservatives will be pushed aside and we will have to spend many generations undoing their wrongs.</b>

Fair enough. I guess.

But you know, sometimes I wonder if it's only the Religious folks who fight against Gay Marriage. Sadly, I know a few Non-Religious folks who have "issues" with Gays and Gay Marriage and I'm guessing there are more Non-Religious folks out there who oppose it than one might think.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 02:22 PM
don't religious institutes have an exemption in their hiring practices? they can discriminate in their hiring, right? or am i mistaken?



Absolutely, which is why I made the statement I made. This 'concern' over forced-marriages is completely absurd until a more reasonable discrimination case is decided against a church.

Giantrobo
10-31-08, 02:23 PM
Dude, you live in CA.

What's your point? So does Sherm42 and clearly we're seeing both extremes.

Venusian
10-31-08, 02:24 PM
Fair enough. I guess.

But you know, sometimes I wonder if it's only the Religious folks who fight against Gay Marriage. Sadly, I know a few Non-Religious folks who have "issues" with Gays and Gay Marriage and I'm guessing there are more Non-Religious folks out there who oppose it than one might think.

there was at least one person who posted on this forum saying they were against gay marriage for non religious reasons. I think they were an atheist, but i could be mistaken

orangecrush
10-31-08, 02:27 PM
members sue churches they are kicked out of? why? that sounds stupid. any links to these cases? i'd think the courts would toss out the cases
My last church was sued by a gay lady due to church discipline. The church settled out of court to avoid the cost of defense. I don't think it is a common occurrence though. Most people who would sue over the issue wouldn't attend a church that practices it in the first place. Also, as far as I know the courts have upheld churches rights to discipline.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 02:27 PM
Two unmarried people cannot make medical decisions for one another without a Power of Attorney or similar document.

Nor SHOULD they be able to! What I am saying is that one such "similar document" would be your civil union documentation.

Walker Boh
10-31-08, 02:30 PM
My sister and her husband were actually denied marriage by a Catholic church because my sister wasn't Catholic.That's weird. Was that the official reason (simply "she's not Catholic")? I'm curious because I'm just starting the process. As I understand it they should've been able to work that out (assuming he was a practicing Catholic, no previous non-annulled marriages, etc).http://www.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml
In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage, the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a "permission to enter into a mixed marriage." If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a "dispensation from disparity of cult." Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process.

CRM114
10-31-08, 02:34 PM
What's your point? So does Sherm42 and clearly we're seeing both extremes.

You're not seeing any "extreme" outside of CA. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 02:35 PM
What is required to educate people, beyond my one-sentence proposal? It grants all the same rights. End of story.

It requires no more education than educating people on the fact that marriage also includes same-sex couples.

There is a different between implicit and explicit knowledge. There is no need to "educate" people about marriage equality, once it is law, as the terminology is already understood.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 02:37 PM
Nor SHOULD they be able to! What I am saying is that one such "similar document" would be your civil union documentation.

Look, you obviously, even when presented with evidence that civil unions do not grant all the same rights as marriage, do not get it.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 02:41 PM
Absolutely, which is why I made the statement I made. This 'concern' over forced-marriages is completely absurd until a more reasonable discrimination case is decided against a church.

I get it, but I think it is on the same line as worrying about abortions being mandatory, or completely illegal.

I dislike voting against something because of a slippery slope.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 02:42 PM
In those articles I see ways in which the rights were not applied equally, but not that the rights were not granted. YES, this is a problem. I have a problem with this.

For example, forms that are not gender-neutral. These forms are not corrected by either same-sex "marriage" or "unions." Someone has to actually maket he forms compatible and neutral.

The same is true for out-of-state organizations and the complications that arise. Where is the disconnect here?

kvrdave
10-31-08, 02:42 PM
Nor SHOULD they be able to! What I am saying is that one such "similar document" would be your civil union documentation.

I use to think this as well, but I dislike the "feel" of the "separate but equal" that it exudes.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 02:44 PM
I get it, but I think it is on the same line as worrying about abortions being mandatory, or completely illegal.

I dislike voting against something because of a slippery slope.


I never said I thought that church hiring practices could successfully be challenged. That's almost as unlikely as forced marriages. We shouldn't worry about either happening.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 02:48 PM
I use to think this as well, but I dislike the "feel" of the "separate but equal" that it exudes.

I waver on that as well. It seems silly to have two statuses that grant the same rights. Ideally I would prefer all unions be civil unions as I said. Churches can hand out separate "Marriage certificates" that would carry far more meaning.

But since that's not what Prop 8 is proposing or opposing, it's a different issue. We are only able to vote on the options placed before us.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 03:06 PM
I realize that casting a "yes" vote on Prop 8 is equivalent to registering with the state as a bigot in some people's eyes. That's unfortunate, as I am very much a proponent of equal rights for gays under the law. That seems to be the basis of all of the "against" statements that I have read, however, so I have been unconvinced to oppose the legislation. I think there are better alternatives to the route that the state court has taken. Hopefully these are arrived at in the near future.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 03:09 PM
I realize that casting a "yes" vote on Prop 8 is equivalent to registering with the state as a bigot in some people's eyes. That's unfortunate, as I am very much a proponent of equal rights for gays under the law.

No, you're not.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 03:15 PM
No, you're not.

So in your eyes, my ideal situation of Civil Unions under the law with marriage reserved as a separate institution lacking legal ramifications, is bigotry?

Or are you simply saying that to be called a "proponent of equal rights" i must compromise some of my values to attain those rights through what I consider imperfect means?

Giantrobo
10-31-08, 03:15 PM
You're not seeing any "extreme" outside of CA. :lol:

What makes you think that? I read the Internets. :lol: And I'm certainly not saying other parts of the Americas or the World aren't stuck in the year 520 when it comes to gays. :lol:

It's just better today for Gays than it was before. Shit, remember the days when just being Gay could put you in Jail or get your Gay Club raided?

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 03:21 PM
That's weird. Was that the official reason (simply "she's not Catholic")? I'm curious because I'm just starting the process. As I understand it they should've been able to work that out (assuming he was a practicing Catholic, no previous non-annulled marriages, etc).

This was in 1985. Not sure if things changed. I believe they were told by the Priest that he wouldn't marry them unless she converted to Catholicism. They got married in a Lutheran church instead.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 03:26 PM
So in your eyes, my ideal situation of Civil Unions under the law with marriage reserved as a separate institution lacking legal ramifications, is bigotry?

Yes.

Or are you simply saying that to be called a "proponent of equal rights" i must compromise some of my values to attain those rights through what I consider imperfect means?

What values would be compromised by granting marriage equality? Please, I'm all ears.

X
10-31-08, 03:30 PM
I can tell you who has been harmed by same-sex marriages -- my son. A friend of his can't attend his birthday party because the friend has a same-sex wedding to go to.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 03:39 PM
What values would be compromised by granting marriage equality? Please, I'm all ears.

Since you answered "Yes" to my first question, there isn't a lot to work with.

My only issue is reserving the term "marriage" as a bond between a man and a woman. End of story. I stand for equivalent rights under the law, both stated and applied. If it's not enough to enjoy the exact same rights, then I guess I have to accept your loathing.

Baron Of Hell
10-31-08, 03:40 PM
I can tell you who has been harmed by same-sex marriages -- my son. A friend of his can't attend his birthday party because the friend has a same-sex wedding to go to.

Why do you think your son's birthday party will be more fun than a same sex wedding? I bet there won't be clowns at the birthday party or fun stuff like Saint Row 2 competition like at the wedding.

Oh wait are you saying your son will be harmed because he can't go to wedding with his friend? In that case I agree with you.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 03:45 PM
Since you answered "Yes" to my first question, there isn't a lot to work with.

Yeah, unintentional bigotry is a bitch when people call you out on it, huh?

My only issue is reserving the term "marriage" as a bond between a man and a woman. End of story. I stand for equivalent rights under the law, both stated and applied. If it's not enough to enjoy the exact same rights, then I guess I have to accept your loathing.

Works for me!

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 03:51 PM
And that's that. I'll try not to hold it against you.

sracer
10-31-08, 04:04 PM
And people wonder why I ridicule religion. Hell, just say God said it and everything is fine. -rolleyes- Like this jackass ever spoke personally with his god.
I don't wonder why. I know why. It is to make yourself appear more intelligent than those who have faith. Because if you were intellectually honest about the issue of religion, you would reject a religion based on the people who are faithfully adhering to their beliefs, not those who aren't.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 04:05 PM
Yeah, unintentional bigotry is a bitch when people call you out on it, huh?



Works for me!

And the true intolerance rears it's ugly head.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 04:07 PM
And the true intolerance rears it's ugly head.

:lol: Yeah, okay.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 04:16 PM
It's interesting that one would argue that "marriage" is merely a legal bond and not a sacred institution while simultaneously fighting for classification by that same word and nothing less, then calling anyone who favors granting all rights associated with "marriage" to others, without the mere use of the word, as a "bigot."

I don't take that work lightly, and I trust you don't use it lightly either.

Baron Of Hell
10-31-08, 04:20 PM
I don't wonder why. I know why. It is to make yourself appear more intelligent than those who have faith. Because if you were intellectually honest about the issue of religion, you would reject a religion based on the people who are faithfully adhering to their beliefs, not those who aren't.

That is kind of silly. Based on what has been said Thor isn't adhering to his religion unless you think cherry picking key points from your religion that happen to support your point of view is adhering to your religion.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 04:29 PM
It's interesting that one would argue that "marriage" is merely a legal bond and not a sacred institution while simultaneously fighting for classification by that same word and nothing less, then calling anyone who favors granting all rights associated with "marriage" to others, without the mere use of the word, as a "bigot."

Civil and religious marriage are completely separate, dude. We've gone over this enough times in this forum that you're either being deliberately obtuse or you just don't pay attention.

I don't take that work lightly, and I trust you don't use it lightly either.

I didn't call you a bigot.

Mark_vdH
10-31-08, 04:34 PM
And the true intolerance rears it's ugly head.And true grammar intolerance rears its ugly head. -ptth-

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 04:35 PM
I didn't call you a bigot.

Ah. Just an unintentional one.

That is kind of silly. Based on what has been said Thor isn't adhering to his religion unless you think cherry picking key points from your religion that happen to support your point of view is adhering to your religion.

Explain how I am not "adhering to my religion?" :confused: I'll assume you mean separating my religious beliefs from what I believe should be law?

Civil and religious marriage are completely separate, dude. We've gone over this enough times in this forum that you're either being deliberately obtuse or you just don't pay attention.
I'm almost on board. Almost. But just because "we've gone over it enough times" doesn't mean that the repetition has delivered agreement.

They're not entirely separate. Not at all. When I got married (religious ceremony), I had to sign the legal documents stating such.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 04:41 PM
Ah. Just an unintentional one.

No, I did not, and please don't put words in my mouth- I certainly haven't done that to you.

I referred to your "unintentional bigotry", because a) I don't believe you are a "bigot" and b) I don't believe you've fully examined the issue or thought your position completely through. And when challenged, you fall back on your "beliefs", which is fine, except that anyone who disagrees with you reserves the right to call you out on your illogical reasoning and fundamental mistakes.

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 04:45 PM
I'm almost on board. Almost. But just because "we've gone over it enough times" doesn't mean that the repetition has delivered agreement.

They're not entirely separate. Not at all. When I got married (religious ceremony), I had to sign the legal documents stating such.

The point remains though that any church that performs a marriage ceremony has also been allowed to make that a civil marriage. It does not follow that because civil marriage equality has been legalized that churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Just because B requires A does not mean that A requires B.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 04:48 PM
Alright, thank you for not thinking me a bigot. I'll start there. :)

You're right that I do not have an all-encompassing grasp of the issue and I'm trying to more fully understand it in the midst of this conversation.

I'm still trying to understand what fundamental mistake I am making when I say that a status of "civil union" granting all the legal rights of a spouse, both in name and in practice, is both unfair and a form of bigotry, given that you feel civil and religious marriage are completely separate.

What exactly is it about civil marriage that supersedes civil union in your opinion, other than potentially more work in ensuring the application of law (which I argue is necessary in either case).

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 04:49 PM
The point remains though that any church that performs a marriage ceremony has also been allowed to make that a civil marriage. It does not follow that because civil marriage equality has been legalized that churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

Just because B requires A does not mean that A requires B.

I'm not in the crowd that is concerned about churches being forced to marry gay couples, so please distinguish the arguments.

I was merely pointing out that the institutions are not entirely separate. In order to fulfill my religious marriage, I was also entrusted with the legal rights and obligations associated with it.

For starters, I had to pay a fee, which is not something demanded by my religious beliefs. :)

Tracer Bullet
10-31-08, 04:51 PM
What exactly is it about civil marriage that supersedes civil union in your opinion, other than potentially more work in ensuring the application of law (which I argue is necessary in either case).

My disagreement with a civil union is that it essentially sets up a "separate-but-equal" status (and we have decided that is a Bad Thing). Either gay people are full citizens and deserve the exact same rights as heterosexuals, or we're not.

Anyway, I'm out of here until tomorrow- I have Halloween plans.

kitkat
10-31-08, 04:52 PM
Or are you simply saying that to be called a "proponent of equal rights" i must compromise some of my values to attain those rights through what I consider imperfect means?

What values would be compromised by granting marriage equality? Please, I'm all ears.

Just pointing out that marriage equality has, of course, already been attained and granted in California. Prop 8 is about depriving people of a right they already have.

Groucho
10-31-08, 04:53 PM
Is making all legal couplings "Civil Unions" and making the term "marriage" exclusive to private enterprise a compromise that is unacceptable to all but myself?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 04:58 PM
Anyway, I'm out of here until tomorrow- I have Halloween plans.

Thanks for the reminder. I'm going as a civilly unionized man. Chains and everything. ;)

spainlinx0
10-31-08, 04:59 PM
Is making all legal couplings "Civil Unions" and making the term "marriage" exclusive to private enterprise a compromise that is unacceptable to all but myself?

Works for me.

orangecrush
10-31-08, 05:02 PM
Is making all legal couplings "Civil Unions" and making the term "marriage" exclusive to private enterprise a compromise that is unacceptable to all but myself?
It seems to me to be the best solution. Who knew you were such a uniter?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 05:07 PM
Guess we'll have to wait for Tracer to get back tomorrow before I can hear why that idea fails to establish equal rights. See post 110.

kitkat
10-31-08, 05:10 PM
Is making all legal couplings "Civil Unions" and making the term "marriage" exclusive to private enterprise a compromise that is unacceptable to all but myself?

That would be ideal, as long as marriage has absolutely no legal status.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 05:14 PM
That would be ideal, as long as marriage has absolutely no legal status.

Shouldn't be too hard to round up some divorcee signatures on that one.

JasonF
10-31-08, 05:15 PM
Since you answered "Yes" to my first question, there isn't a lot to work with.

My only issue is reserving the term "marriage" as a bond between a man and a woman. End of story. I stand for equivalent rights under the law, both stated and applied. If it's not enough to enjoy the exact same rights, then I guess I have to accept your loathing.

"Reserving?" What does that mean? I know plenty of people, both gay and straight, who refer to the relationship between two men or two women who would get married if the law allowed it as a "marriage." In addition, some of the more liberal religious denominations already perform gay marriages. So I don't know exactly what you think you're reserving, but you certainly can't stop people from using the term "marriage" however they want.

kitkat
10-31-08, 05:16 PM
Hmmm, now I want to rethink why we even need a special legal status for committed couples in the first place.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 05:20 PM
Reserving as in "setting aside."

People can call it anything they want. They can also call you an ugly banana pants. But that doesn't mean I want a law saying that JasonF is an ugly banana pants. I kind of like your pants. I would prefer that the law simply require people to wear pants in public and let the people who want to wear ugly banana pants wear them. And if there are laws that favor people in ugly banana pants, then I think those laws should be extended also to those with other pants. But I don't think we should change the definition of banana pants to fit all pants when not all pants have a likeness to bananas.

eXcentris
10-31-08, 05:24 PM
Que?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 05:25 PM
I swear I wasn't like this until I got married. There's a reason they call it an "institution."

Pistol Pete
10-31-08, 05:27 PM
My disagreement with a civil union is that it essentially sets up a "separate-but-equal" status (and we have decided that is a Bad Thing). Either gay people are full citizens and deserve the exact same rights as heterosexuals, or we're not.
Bingo! This is why we cannot have different terms for married straight vs gay couples. Separate-but-equal simply does not work.

Besides the Hollywood crowd has done more damage to traditional marriage than letting Adam and Steve get hitched ever would.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 05:31 PM
It's not "separate but equal" when the rights established are truly identical.

This isn't a question of having one lunch counter for gays and one for straight couples.

This is more like arguing that instead of having the same rights for black and white people, we need to start calling black people "white people" to make sure the existing laws cover them.

My proposal is to call this a "union," which would be inclusive of straight people and gay people, just as all laws should be geared towards "people" as a whole, not "white people" or "black people."

When there were laws or policies directed at black people, we needed to correct those laws. We didn't do so by putting a hat on the people that says "I'm white now." Although that would have been a lot easier since stores wouldn't have had to make the effort to take down their "whites only" signs.

kitkat
10-31-08, 05:48 PM
But in California we already have "equal". Why take that away from some people?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 05:54 PM
But in California we already have "equal". Why take that away from some people?

The manner in which that was obtained (the courts overruling something that the people already established through a vote) is part of the issue. If there was a measure to establish those same rights under a different umbrella that would be in line with the version of the constitution that voters support, I would support it. No such initiative is on the ballot. It remains to be determined whether the voters want that in the constitution. We'll know in a few days and work from there.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 05:59 PM
Hmmm, now I want to rethink why we even need a special legal status for committed couples in the first place.


Social engineering. It is seen as good for the country to promote certain things and tax other things. For awhile, marriage was bad and we gave better tax standing to those who simply lived together. Now we are equal again.

Oh....you said "need." We don't need it, but look at the size of our government. We're going to get it and keep it anyway.

sherm42
10-31-08, 06:41 PM
It's not "separate but equal" when the rights established are truly identical.



In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court said that separate is inherently unequal, even if you are truly given the same exact thing. They based this on psychological studies (considered very controversial for them to do that) that concluded that when a society separates a group of people, it does psychological damage.

Simply put, telling something that they can have their rights, but they must be separate is basically telling them that they are not equals.

sherm42
10-31-08, 06:44 PM
The manner in which that was obtained (the courts overruling something that the people already established through a vote) is part of the issue. If there was a measure to establish those same rights under a different umbrella that would be in line with the version of the constitution that voters support, I would support it. No such initiative is on the ballot. It remains to be determined whether the voters want that in the constitution. We'll know in a few days and work from there.

Total and complete BS. There are some rights that are above the "will of the majority." Under your desire to have measures and laws enacted by voters to dictate rights, we would still have racial segregation, and interracial marriages would still be illegal. These were all decision by the Supreme Court.

The simple fact is that people (particularly a majority) tend to be stupid, fearful, bigoted, racist, etc. You don't put equal rights into the hands of a majority of the electorate and just hope they are nice enough to treat the minority equally.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 06:53 PM
In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court said that separate is inherently unequal, even if you are truly given the same exact thing. They based this on psychological studies (considered very controversial for them to do that) that concluded that when a society separates a group of people, it does psychological damage.

Simply put, telling something that they can have their rights, but they must be separate is basically telling them that they are not equals.

Except, I believe Thor was actually advocating that everyone only have civil unions under the law (gay and straight).

wm lopez
10-31-08, 06:56 PM
It comes down to the Bible.
And God said no same sex sex.
Now for godless people if same sex marriage is fine then any kind of marriage should be fine. Like brother,sister etc.,etc.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 06:58 PM
Total and complete BS. There are some rights that are above the "will of the majority." Under your desire to have measures and laws dictate rights, we would still have racial segregation, and interracial marriages would still be illegal. These were all decision by the Supreme Court.

The simple fact is that people (particularly a majority) tend to be stupid, fearful, bigoted, racist, etc. You don't put equal rights into the hands of a majority of the electorate and just hope they are nice enough to treat the minority equally.


While I disagree with Thor's position, I don't think it is BS. I think it is a valid argument to say that gays do have equal rights. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like I do. As a male, my right is no different from Tracer's, even if he has no desire to have that right. I also, as a straight, yet very desirable, man cannot marry another man. I don't have any desire to, but even if I did, I can't. We have equal rights.

Where people don't like that argument is when they say, "Yeah, but you have the right to marry someone you love and I don't." the "love" in that case doesn't matter. I have the same right to marry someone I don't love. I can marry for money or big hooters. People get married for a lot of reasons that aren't love.

Again, I don't oppose gay marriage, but I don't think the arguments against are total BS.

And....dare I say it....if it is just about consenting adults doing what they want, give me polygamy. Several wives of differing breast sizes and talents. All with good jobs during the day. If we all consent (and I love them) then why can't we?

sherm42
10-31-08, 06:59 PM
Except, I believe Thor was actually advocating that everyone only have civil unions under the law (gay and straight).

I may have misread on this point. Thanks. Still, using that as a reason to deny gays equal rights is ridiculous since it is living fantasyland to think that the state and federal governments are ever going to get out of the "marriage" definition and call everything "civil unions." Plus, those advocating for the "sanctity" of marriage would never allow for the government to change their "marriages" to civil unions.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:01 PM
Except, I believe Thor was actually advocating that everyone only have civil unions under the law (gay and straight).

Precisely. "Marriage" would still exist as an institution, but as a separate entity only for those who choose to take the additional steps to enter into it. Marriage would not entitle the individual to any additional legal rights.

Under these terms, someone could open up a garage shop to offer "marriages" to anyone (including gay couples) they please, but there would not be a state endorsement of those relationships as "marriages." People could feel free to accept them as marriages or not in their day to day lives (just as they can now with gay couples), but there would not be any legal jurisdiction. Obviously many of these marriages would be church-based and there would almost certainly be cultural legitimacy to those who seek a covenant of marriage in more traditional ways.

Semantics? Absolutely. But apparently important enough that failing to grant gay couples the official legal title of "marriage" is grounds for opposition.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 07:05 PM
While I disagree with Thor's position, I don't think it is BS. I think it is a valid argument to say that gays do have equal rights. They have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like I do. As a male, my right is no different from Tracer's, even if he has no desire to have that right. I also, as a straight, yet very desirable, man cannot marry another man. I don't have any desire to, but even if I did, I can't. We have equal rights.

Where people don't like that argument is when they say, "Yeah, but you have the right to marry someone you love and I don't." the "love" in that case doesn't matter. I have the same right to marry someone I don't love. I can marry for money or big hooters. People get married for a lot of reasons that aren't love.

Again, I don't oppose gay marriage, but I don't think the arguments against are total BS.

And....dare I say it....if it is just about consenting adults doing what they want, give me polygamy. Several wives of differing breast sizes and talents. All with good jobs during the day. If we all consent (and I love them) then why can't we?

To play devil's advocate, couldn't you say the same of interracial marriage? That's it's not unequal, because both races are restricted only marrying their own race?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:06 PM
Plus, those advocating for the "sanctity" of marriage would never allow for the government to change their "marriages" to civil unions.

I would argue that the responsibilities (and sanctity) of marriage might be taken a lot more seriously if it was an additional step to what we have now, which is essentially a legal union for many people.

Baron Of Hell
10-31-08, 07:07 PM
Yeah it would be nice if the government got out of marriage and only have civil unions but that will never happen. Or if you really think this might happen one day what harm would it do to grant gay couples the title of marriage now while we wait for pigs to fly.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:09 PM
To play devil's advocate, couldn't you say the same of interracial marriage? That's it's not unequal, because both races are restricted only marrying their own race?

One is still a federally protected class, and one isn't. :shrug:


edit: Also race is not an easy thing to really restrict because of the different shades, etc. Picking out males from females is a lot easier.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:11 PM
I may have misread on this point. Thanks. Still, using that as a reason to deny gays equal rights is ridiculous since it is living fantasyland to think that the state and federal governments are ever going to get out of the "marriage" definition and call everything "civil unions." Plus, those advocating for the "sanctity" of marriage would never allow for the government to change their "marriages" to civil unions.


This is the key point. There are so many laws and rules dependent on the word 'marriage.' Yeah, it would be great to be able to waive a wand and either have the state get out of the marriage game or call these things 'civil unions,' but that's not reality. Under the law, we have to deal with reality and the reality is that marriage is the legal term and right we are dealing with and it's not going away. As such, anything not rising to that level cannot truly be called equal.

DodgingCars
10-31-08, 07:12 PM
One is still a federally protected class, and one isn't. :shrug:


edit: Also race is not an easy thing to really restrict because of the different shades, etc. Picking out males from females is a lot easier.

Especially with the Crocodile Dundee test!

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:14 PM
Or if you really think this might happen one day what harm would it do to grant gay couples the title of marriage now

Look at the sensitivity towards Prop 8.

Once you give it, taking it back is an entirely different animal. It's much harder for me to vote for this bill than it would have been to say "let's get it right" the first round. Of course, the voters didn't have that chance, the courts made it happen.

I would like to see the rights granted in an appropriate manner. I'm going to have to draft a bloody proposition for the next election if this keeps up. :lol:

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:15 PM
One is still a federally protected class, and one isn't. :shrug:



And what entity made it a federally protected class? Note the 14th amendment makes zero mention of race or gender or any class of people. It simply mentions citizens.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:15 PM
Especially with the Crocodile Dundee test!

:lol: Another government job I do not want.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:15 PM
This is the key point. There are so many laws and rules dependent on the word 'marriage.' Yeah, it would be great to be able to waive a wand and either have the state get out of the marriage game or call these things 'civil unions,' but that's not reality.

Isn't that what Amendments are all about?

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:17 PM
And what entity made it a federally protected class? Note the 14th amendment makes zero mention of race or gender or any class of people. It simply mentions citizens.

Was it the one that gave us the Defense of Marriage Act?

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:17 PM
Look at the sensitivity towards Prop 8.

Once you give it, taking it back is an entirely different animal. It's much harder for me to vote for this bill than it would have been to say "let's get it right" the first round. Of course, the voters didn't have that chance, the courts made it happen.

I would like to see the rights granted in an appropriate manner. I'm going to have to draft a bloody proposition for the next election if this keeps up. :lol:


See - this is the fundamental problem. You view rights as things that should be given/granted. I view rights as things that should be inherent.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:22 PM
Was it the one that gave us the Defense of Marriage Act?

Don't know what you mean. You spoke of protected classes (race is, sexual orientation isn't). What entity of government established the concept of protected classes?

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:24 PM
See - this is the fundamental problem. You view rights as things that should be given/granted. I view rights as things that should be inherent.
Like from your parents?

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:24 PM
See - this is the fundamental problem. You view rights as things that should be given/granted. I view rights as things that should be inherent.

Good argument. I'll agree with that statement.

Rephrase to "I would like to see the rights described in an appropriate manner..." :D

But I think we are largely talking about privileges that are indeed granted based upon the union. So defining the rights properly is important.

If it is the right of every individual to "marry" then we do need a legal definition of marriage to explain what that right means. If it is the right of every individual to enter into a union with one other individual (much less romantic, I'll agree) then we need to say so.

It seems to me that gender-neutral language is in fact used as the definition of marriage. This is where some find "offense." And if changing the language to "a man and a woman" then takes away one's liberties, there is a conflict. So it seems the alternative must be to omit the word marriage and replace it with union. But there is the problem, since that is not what is being proposed. Boy, is this a muck.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:25 PM
Isn't that what Amendments are all about?

Sure you could do it by amendment - in fantasy land.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:25 PM
Don't know what you mean. You spoke of protected classes (race is, sexual orientation isn't). What entity of government established the concept of protected classes?

The socialist activist judiciary?

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:30 PM
The socialist activist judiciary?

Sure. :lol:

Still the point is that you obviously subscribe to the notion that race and gender are protected classes. Where did you derive this notion from? What characteristic makes a class eligible for protection?

Dr Mabuse
10-31-08, 07:30 PM
The socialist activist judiciary?

:lol:

:mad:

belboz
10-31-08, 07:32 PM
I'm actually pretty astounded at how far the same sex marriage debate has moved in the last 8 years. The proposition in California that defined marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000 passed pretty overwhelmingly. People who were against same sex marriage at the time were passionately against anything that would legitimize gay or lesbian relationships, so for a lot of them even civil unions were unacceptable.

Now it seems most are amenable to that, only wanting to preserve the traditional notions of marriage. Yes/No on prop 8 is running pretty close to even in the polls I've seen and my sense is that it probably will go down, leaving the state court decision standing. That's a pretty remarkable swing.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:32 PM
Good argument. I'll agree with that statement.

Rephrase to "I would like to see the rights described in an appropriate manner..." :D

But I think we are largely talking about privileges that are indeed granted based upon the union. So defining the rights properly is important.

If it is the right of every individual to "marry" then we do need a legal definition of marriage to explain what that right means. If it is the right of every individual to enter into a union with one other individual (much less romantic, I'll agree) then we need to say so.


Marriage has effectively become a right. If you are single and walk into the county clerk's office with a single unrelated woman and you ask for a marriage license, they cannot deny you a marriage license.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:36 PM
Marriage has effectively become a right. If you are single and walk into the county clerk's office with a single unrelated woman and you ask for a marriage license, they cannot deny you a marriage license.
Unless I'm already married, which really leaves my other lover up a crick. ;)

(I know, you said "if you are single")

Need time to process.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:41 PM
Sure. :lol:

Still the point is that you obviously subscribe to the notion that race and gender are protected classes. Where did you derive this notion from? What characteristic makes a class eligible for protection?

I'm dealing with the Devil's Advocate, man!!! :lol: I'm not saying I think it, only that it was a difference.

Anyway, I get that notion from posters i am forced to put up in the workplace.

Red Dog
10-31-08, 07:46 PM
Nothing wrong with playing Devil's Advocate. You just need to be able to advocate well. ;)

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 07:48 PM
I'm reading the Prop 8 statements again here.

It says that Prop 8 takes away "no rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships." Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses."

The proposition is to "restore the definition of marriage as a man and woman" but would not take away the same rights that are already granted to domestic partners.

This makes sense to me based on my argument for civil unions. I am open to correction, please.

Indeed, it seems that the title of "marriage" itself is the goal of prop 8 opponents, not any rights associated with it.

kvrdave
10-31-08, 07:53 PM
Nothing wrong with playing Devil's Advocate. You just need to be able to advocate well. ;)

I wasn't playing it, I was responding to it. :( Or him. Or something.

Dodgingcars is SATAN'S ADVOCATE!!!

Lord Rick
10-31-08, 08:21 PM
Indeed, it seems that the title of "marriage" itself is the goal of prop 8 opponents, not any rights associated with it.

As has been pointed out, marriage itself has rights associated with it in many ways, and there just isn't any practical way to separate the two.

Th0r S1mpson
10-31-08, 09:25 PM
As has been pointed out, marriage itself has rights associated with it in many ways, and there just isn't any practical way to separate the two.

The proposition statements state that Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses."

Maybe this is dishonest, I don't know. But I would like to know what specific rights marriage has associated with it that are not covered by the domestic partner protections.

Baron Of Hell
10-31-08, 11:15 PM
The proposition statements state that Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections and benefits as married spouses."

Maybe this is dishonest, I don't know. But I would like to know what specific rights marriage has associated with it that are not covered by the domestic partner protections.

From ACLU website

The law does not give same-sex couples any of the more than 1000 rights and benefits that the federal government gives to married couples, including:

* the right to sponsor a partner for immigration purposes;
* the right to family-related Social Security benefits;
* the right to federal income and estate tax breaks; and
* the right to purchase continued health coverage for a partner after the loss of a job.

Right now, the federal government wont let any state extend these federal benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the relationship is called.

Even under California law, same-sex couples are not completely equal. Domestic Partners cannot file joint state income taxes and state employees are not entitled to the same benefits under the states long-term care benefits package.

That last part might be a benefit

The initial law itself list off a few exceptions but I wasn't able to find it.
Oh wait this guy list them
http://djskeematics.blogspot.com/2008/10/does-marriage-provide-same-sex-couples.html

Nothing in there that would change anybody mind though.

DodgingCars
11-01-08, 09:31 AM
I wasn't playing it, I was responding to it. :( Or him. Or something.

Dodgingcars is SATAN'S ADVOCATE!!!

:whofart:

Tracer Bullet
11-01-08, 12:09 PM
It's not "separate but equal" when the rights established are truly identical.

Um, Thor, come on. I know you're an intelligent guy. Having different institutions for different groups of people, even if they have the exact same rights, is the very definition of separate but equal. It is literally separate but equal!

kvrdave
11-01-08, 01:35 PM
:whofart:


:lol: Sorry. He was "playing" the devil's advocate. I saw the post. :p

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-08, 02:20 PM
Um, Thor, come on. I know you're an intelligent guy. Having different institutions for different groups of people, even if they have the exact same rights,

I don't see it as different institutions for different people. I see it as different "institutions" (or names) for different types of relationships. That's the catch. I don't think homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because there is something wrong with homosexuals, I think homosexuals cannot be "married" because I define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I have no problem with people joining in unions within the same sex or opposite sex and experiencing identical rights under the law. I simply have a problem with calling this "marriage." We call men "husbands" and women "wives" and I don't see this infringing on one's rights in this country.

Tracer Bullet
11-01-08, 02:44 PM
I don't see it as different institutions for different people. I see it as different "institutions" (or names) for different types of relationships. That's the catch. I don't think homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because there is something wrong with homosexuals, I think homosexuals cannot be "married" because I define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I have no problem with people joining in unions within the same sex or opposite sex and experiencing identical rights under the law. I simply have a problem with calling this "marriage." We call men "husbands" and women "wives" and I don't see this infringing on one's rights in this country.

Then I give up. I'm sorry. You're now doing exactly what everyone pounced on B5Erik for doing the last time this we had a marriage equality thread, which is to say, he was against marriage equality because the definition of marriage is one man, one woman.

On a related point, I find it incredibly offensive that you feel you should retain the right to decide what my committed relationship should be called under the law. It comes down to whether or not you view homosexuals and heterosexuals as equal citizens. We're not demanding anything extraordinary here, and to be honest, this line of defense smack of the "special rights" nonsense.

It wasn't too long ago that most people, even homosexuals, believed that we were psychologically damaged and incapable of forming any meaningful romantic relationships, and your view seems to be a much milder form of that.

Ronnie Dobbs
11-01-08, 02:58 PM
Gay sex is icky!

Gay sex is icky? have you seen the stuff in straight porn? Ass to mouth, bukkakes, 50 guy cream pies, girls eating cum out of other girls asses. Girls snowballing guys, girls using strap on on dudes, guys shoving their dicks down a girls mouth till she gags. I use to work in a video store we had it all.

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-08, 03:11 PM
It comes down to whether or not you view homosexuals and heterosexuals as equal citizens.

No, it doesn't. Let's say we all stay single. Nowhere have I stated that anyone should be treated differently under the law. A homosexual man would have rights identical to a homosexual one.

Okay, now we want to get into relationships. It's muckier here and most agree that relationships might be better left outside of the law. But they are not. "Marriage" is written into our laws. That is why I feel the best course is to ensure that all unions are treated equally under the law and that the full legal rights and obligations of marriage should be extended to homosexual couples who are legally bonded as well.

Sean O'Hara
11-01-08, 03:11 PM
Gay sex is icky? have you seen the stuff in straight porn? Ass to mouth, bukkakes, 50 guy cream pies, girls eating cum out of other girls asses. Girls snowballing guys, girls using strap on on dudes, guys shoving their dicks down a girls mouth till she gags. I use to work in a video store we had it all.

Art?

JasonF
11-01-08, 03:15 PM
I don't see it as different institutions for different people. I see it as different "institutions" (or names) for different types of relationships. That's the catch. I don't think homosexuals should not be allowed to get married because there is something wrong with homosexuals, I think homosexuals cannot be "married" because I define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. I have no problem with people joining in unions within the same sex or opposite sex and experiencing identical rights under the law. I simply have a problem with calling this "marriage." We call men "husbands" and women "wives" and I don't see this infringing on one's rights in this country.

What does it do to your argument that there are religious institutions that recognize gay marriage? You may define a marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, but Universal Unitarianism and Reform Judaism (among other denominations) do not. Why should your definition be preferenced?

Red Dog
11-01-08, 03:27 PM
Why should your definition be preferenced?


It's all so stupid anyhow. Who in a regular conversation is going to say so-and-so and so-and-so were 'civilly unionized,' even if you had a complete equality besides the terminology. Even Thor would probably say 'married' when push comes to shove.

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-08, 03:46 PM
Why should your definition be preferenced?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Unless you think a gay "marriage" is more like the marriage of words and music in a hit song. ;)

You are all correct that in speech, people can call it whatever they want. But since we're talking about something written into law about a term which has implications that extend beyond the legal (and extends into most religions), redefining the word itself becomes a sensitive issue.

Breakfast with Girls
11-01-08, 04:28 PM
Like it or not, Thor, you're on the wrong side of history. Eventually gay couples will be able to be married&mdash;officially, using the word "marriage"&mdash;because it is fundamentally a civil rights issue and will eventually be seen as such by the majority of Americans. The march of social progress is inevitable. :shrug:

kvrdave
11-01-08, 04:38 PM
Like it or not, Thor, you're on the wrong side of history. Eventually gay couples will be able to be married&mdash;officially, using the word "marriage"&mdash;because it is fundamentally a civil rights issue and will eventually be seen as such by the majority of Americans. The march of social progress is inevitable. :shrug:
For you....as not to annoy others....

Do you think the same of polygamy? Is that somehow a civil rights issue? It wouldn't seem to be in the same category to me, but I still can't wrap my head around changing marriage fundamentally, but not allowing polygamy. What are your thoughts, as a guy who is smart?

And I agree with you on this.

Red Dog
11-01-08, 04:58 PM
[url]

You are all correct that in speech, people can call it whatever they want. But since we're talking about something written into law about a term which has implications that extend beyond the legal (and extends into most religions), redefining the word itself becomes a sensitive issue.

So what. Adultery is legal and that's a no-no in most religions. As for it being 'sensitive,' people need to stop being so 'sensitive.' In other words, get over it - it doesn't effect your life one iota.

Birrman54
11-01-08, 05:27 PM
For you....as not to annoy others....

Do you think the same of polygamy? Is that somehow a civil rights issue? It wouldn't seem to be in the same category to me, but I still can't wrap my head around changing marriage fundamentally, but not allowing polygamy. What are your thoughts, as a guy who is smart?

And I agree with you on this.

an institution between two consenting adults is different than an institution between N consenting adults (where N is greater than 2).

JasonF
11-01-08, 06:03 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage

Unless you think a gay "marriage" is more like the marriage of words and music in a hit song. ;)

You are all correct that in speech, people can call it whatever they want. But since we're talking about something written into law about a term which has implications that extend beyond the legal (and extends into most religions), redefining the word itself becomes a sensitive issue.

Oh, well as long as a dictionary on the internet says a marriage is between a man and a woman, I guess that settles it.

Of course most dictionaries are going to talk about marriage as being between a man and a woman. Until recently, that was how most people thought of marriage. It is still how most people think of marriage, but the majority is smaller with every passing day. Eventually, as enough people recognize gay marriage, the dictionaries will change. This is because dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

kvrdave
11-01-08, 06:11 PM
an institution between two consenting adults is different than an institution between N consenting adults (where N is greater than 2).


Well, looking at something that isn't meant for you is just rude. :grunt:

Can you think of other institutions where the limit is always 2? I don't think you can argue that every other thing is like this, when it is the only thing that exists. And why does it matter among consenting adults?

JasonF
11-01-08, 07:02 PM
Proof please. :)

In a marriage, one spouse has the exclusive right to make medical decisions for the other if the other is incapacitated. Were polygamy to be legalized, we would create a situation in which more than one person has exclusive rights to do something. That is a logical contradiction. Therefore, we have just proven that we cannot legalize polygamy without altering the legal definition of marriage.

Dr Mabuse
11-01-08, 07:32 PM
But if you posit that polygamy cannot be considered a marriage simply because it would alter the legal definition of marriage, you're simultaneously "proving" that homosexual marriage can't be considered a marriage, because as it stands it is not recognized as a lawful union either (at least in most states).

You are assuming people can see beyond the myopia of their personal bias.

;)

Giantrobo
11-01-08, 07:34 PM
In a marriage, one spouse has the exclusive right to make medical decisions for the other if the other is incapacitated. Were polygamy to be legalized, we would create a situation in which more than one person has exclusive rights to do something. That is a logical contradiction. Therefore, we have just proven that we cannot legalize polygamy without altering the legal definition of marriage.

Really? I don't see how that figures. It seems awfully... <i>convenient</i>... that it should work out that way. I'll bet for every Religious Cult Pedophile Polygamist on the run and on trial that you see on the news, there are probably quite a few regular Legally aged Polygamists living quiet lives not bothering anyone. Why should their situation be different from Gay Marriage <i>or</i> Straight Marriage. The Answer of course is....It shouldn't be.

Mind you, I'm totally supportive of Gay Marriage(under whatever Legal name the Gays feel comfortable calling it) and Polygamy for consenting adults so please don't think I'm just playing the slippery slope game or devil's advocate. I no longer see any difference between straight M/F marriage and the others mentioned.

Birrman54
11-01-08, 07:53 PM
Really? I don't see how that figures. It seems awfully... <i>convenient</i>... that it should work out that way. I'll bet for every Religious Cult Pedophile Polygamist on the run and on trial that you see on the news, there are probably quite a few regular Legally aged Polygamists living quiet lives not bothering anyone. Why should their situation be different from Gay Marriage <i>or</i> Straight Marriage. The Answer of course is....It shouldn't be.

Mind you, I'm totally supportive of Gay Marriage(under whatever Legal name the Gays feel comfortable calling it) and Polygamy for consenting adults so please don't think I'm just playing the slippery slope game or devil's advocate. I no longer see any difference between straight M/F marriage and the others mentioned.

I mean, I could care less how many people someone chooses to marry, even 1 seems almost too much...

However, clearly things like insurance benefits, social security, custody decisions, etc - all depend on marriages being between two human adults, otherwise I'm marrying all my roomates and we're sharing health benefits.

I just don't see how saying that marriage arrangements can be gender neutral automatically produces the idea that marriages will then consist of dozens of members.

That said, I'd have no problem with polygamists setting up contracts to control their rights and benefits - but clearly it's easier to make marriage consist of man/man, man/woman, woman/woman than it is to make it consist of man/man/man/woman/woman/woman/etc. The first is barely altering the legal definition, the second would not only require unique situations every time, but would most certainly be a major distortion.

--- can anyone think of a contract where the sex of the person was a controlling factor? We don't treat women or men differently in leases, contracts, etc - why is the state's definition of marriage any different?

DarkestPhoenix
11-01-08, 08:11 PM
My son will be a skeleton.. What does that mean?

In the future he will see lots and lots of bones.

DarkestPhoenix
11-01-08, 08:13 PM
In a marriage, one spouse has the exclusive right to make medical decisions for the other if the other is incapacitated. Were polygamy to be legalized, we would create a situation in which more than one person has exclusive rights to do something. That is a logical contradiction. Therefore, we have just proven that we cannot legalize polygamy without altering the legal definition of marriage.

That's why most polygamists have, and I'm not sure of the term, here, but something along the lines of a 'head wife' (pun intended) or 'main wife' who is above the other wives in terms of decision-making.

Or, just make sure you always marry up to three, then you can have a democratic majority rules sitch.

classicman2
11-01-08, 09:14 PM
If polygamy was good enough for Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, it's good enough for me. :)

Th0r S1mpson
11-01-08, 09:22 PM
Like it or not, Thor, you're on the wrong side of history.

Of that much we can be certain.

JasonF
11-01-08, 11:17 PM
That's why most polygamists have, and I'm not sure of the term, here, but something along the lines of a 'head wife' (pun intended) or 'main wife' who is above the other wives in terms of decision-making.

Or, just make sure you always marry up to three, then you can have a democratic majority rules sitch.

But marriage -- in a legal sense -- is about a set of standard rules that get applied consistently to each and every marital relationship. If Joe is in the hospital and someone needs to decide whether to pull the plug, our current laws are set up to deal with the situation of his wife Jane making the decisions. Our system could also accomodate his husband Steve making the decision. No laws would need to be changed. But if Jane and Susan both show up and one says "pull the plug" and the other says not to, our current laws could not accomodate that.

That's one example. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of others. Some could be imported into a multiple-partner relationship without any modification. Some could not.

Now, as you acknowledge, there are solutions to most -- maybe all -- of these problems. But that's not the point. The point is that you would need to find these solutions if you were to legalize polygamy. You would not need to find any solutions if you were to legalize gay marriage, since these problems would not arise.

I am actually not opposed to legalizing polygamy. I just think it's silly to pretend that transforming marriage from an equal relationship between two people of different genders into an equal relationship between two people regardless of gender necessarily means we must also necessarily transform marriage into an equal relationship between three or more people, or a relationship between three or more people will different people within the relationship have different rights with respect to one another.

kvrdave
11-02-08, 12:26 AM
JasonF is correct. It is just too complicated. No legal system or group of lawyers could ever manage to write up something that would address this. I mean....we're talking about more than 2 people. Have you guys even considered the permutations?

I mean imagine if you had to have a lawyer fill out a form that was recorded that addressed several key issues if you wanted to marry a second spouse. That's just too complex. Clearly to make things easy, we should just keep consenting adults from doing what they want.

Duran
11-02-08, 07:22 AM
Why is polygamy the boogeyman at the bottom of the slippery slope? Granted, it's better than those numbskulls talking about marrying farm animals, but it is still senseless. Who cares if Jane wants to marry Bob and Steve? Assuming they all agree to the relationship, it's none of my business.

Lord Rick
11-02-08, 07:29 AM
I prefer polyandry. I don't want more than one wife, but it sure would be nice if my wife had more than one husband. "Mow the lawn? Sorry, honey, it's Joe's turn this week. Bob and I will be watching football and drinking beer."

;)

Th0r S1mpson
11-02-08, 10:07 AM
Why is polygamy the boogeyman at the bottom of the slippery slope?
It's not. Not even close. Dave just brought it up so people could start rolling their eyes a little further ;)


Question for Tracer, Red Dog or others who support the view that unions are simply not enough:
If you had a bill to vote on, in a state where there were no legally accepted homosexual unions at all, and the bill stated that unions were the right of every individual and anyone entering a legal union would have the same rights as those of a spouse under "marriage" in existing law, would you vote for it to extend those rights, or against it because it does not go far enough and people might be complacent about progressing the law further should this law pass? It's difficult making decisions on a bill when you know it is at least a couple years before refinement might be possible.

Red Dog
11-02-08, 10:16 AM
Sure I'd vote for it because something is better than nothing. However, were I a jurist ruling on it (and it would certainly be a case/controversy), I'd rule that it (and the state's marriage rules) doesn't satisfy equal protection.

The polygamy issue is brought in as an attempt to expose hypocrisy and/or to create an expectation that a minority challenging marriage laws should also be responsible for looking out for all the others 'discriminated' against to gain everyone rights (all or nothing), even though equal rights in this country have always been achieved incrementally. By forcing the challenging group to go for everything, it makes it that much harder to achieve. I certainly support legalizing polygamy, but from a libertarian perspective, not equal protection.

kvrdave
11-02-08, 10:17 AM
Why is polygamy the boogeyman at the bottom of the slippery slope? Granted, it's better than those numbskulls talking about marrying farm animals, but it is still senseless. Who cares if Jane wants to marry Bob and Steve? Assuming they all agree to the relationship, it's none of my business.


I don't see it as a boogeyman, personally. I see it as a natural extension of gay marriage, and I am okay with that. If we decide to redefine marriage so that the sex of the person doesn't matter, I do not see any logical argument about why the number of people in a marriage is any more "sacred" to the definition. Again, if we are talking about consenting adults, then this seems like a right we should not decy other consenting adults.

And the "too complex" argument is just about as stupid as I can imagine. People that support gay marriage but are against multiple spouse marriage are now in a position of throwing up the same type of stupid arguments they railed against for those who opposed gay marriage, but many of them don't see it.

Bah, incorporating is just too complex. We could never handle that. So many questions to be answered, let's just not allow it.

arminius
11-02-08, 10:22 AM
I don't see it as a boogeyman, personally. I see it as a natural extension of gay marriage, and I am okay with that. If we decide to redefine marriage so that the sex of the person doesn't matter, I do not see any logical argument about why the number of people in a marriage is any more "sacred" to the definition. Again, if we are talking about consenting adults, then this seems like a right we should not decy other consenting adults.

And the "too complex" argument is just about as stupid as I can imagine. People that support gay marriage but are against multiple spouse marriage are now in a position of throwing up the same type of stupid arguments they railed against for those who opposed gay marriage, but many of them don't see it.

Bah, incorporating is just too complex. We could never handle that. So many questions to be answered, let's just not allow it.

Grok On!

Red Dog
11-02-08, 10:27 AM
JasonF is correct. It is just too complicated. No legal system or group of lawyers could ever manage to write up something that would address this. I mean....we're talking about more than 2 people. Have you guys even considered the permutations?

I mean imagine if you had to have a lawyer fill out a form that was recorded that addressed several key issues if you wanted to marry a second spouse. That's just too complex. Clearly to make things easy, we should just keep consenting adults from doing what they want.


I don't believe that JasonF disagrees that polygamy can't be done. He did say he's not opposed to it. He is speaking to default rules based on marriage, set up by the state (inheritance, child custody, medical decision-making etc) in the absense of written agreements (wills, powers-of-attorney, etc). The fact is that if you legalized homosexual marriage, these numerous default rules don't have to be adjusted. With polygamy, they would have to be. I don't believe this is an adequate reason to oppose polygamy, but it would be naive to believe that this would be a simple process.

Th0r S1mpson
11-02-08, 10:36 AM
Obama's plan talks about working families that make less than 250K. He doesn't say working couples, he says working families. So if you had 47 wives, many of them working, you would probably see a tax increase even though you still have to pay for all those shoes. Don't tell me they would share shoes.

Breakfast with Girls
11-02-08, 12:00 PM
For you....as not to annoy others....

Do you think the same of polygamy? Is that somehow a civil rights issue? It wouldn't seem to be in the same category to me, but I still can't wrap my head around changing marriage fundamentally, but not allowing polygamy. What are your thoughts, as a guy who is smart?I don't think it'll happen, for one very good reason. Most guys aren't going to be able to talk their wives into it, so they sure as hell aren't going to let some <em>other</em> guy get away with it. :lol:

sherm42
11-02-08, 12:19 PM
My boss is a bit of a feminist and here is the problem she has with polygamy:

In theory, she doesn't care, except that polygamy always seems to be about oppression of women. You never see one woman with multiple husbands. It is always one guy with multiple wives and far too often, the women are brought into the marriages when they are extremely young, sometimes even minors. Almost like brain washing or a cult.

I think there is certainly some validity to this. Polygamy certainly does raise issues that gay marriage does not, including consent. Further, polygamy always seems mixed in with some kind of religious belief in the inferiority of women (or at least a duty to serve men).

Personally, I can't see why any man would want multiple wives. One is so more than enough.

Birrman54
11-02-08, 12:25 PM
I remember reading an interesting piece on the economics of polygamy: the authors concluded that in general polygamy tends to favor women and disenfranchise males.

If you consider someone like Bill Gates, under monogamy his wealth can at most be split between one other partner. With a polygamous relationship, potentially dozens of women could have access to similarly vast amounts of his wealth. Meanwhile, poorer, less successful males have fewer mates to choose from.

It's not an adequate study, mostly for the reasons sherm pointed out; incest, lack of consent, etc.

DVD Polizei
11-02-08, 01:47 PM
At this point in my life...I would be 110% for Some Sex Marriage. :(

JasonF
11-02-08, 02:51 PM
JasonF is correct. It is just too complicated. No legal system or group of lawyers could ever manage to write up something that would address this. I mean....we're talking about more than 2 people. Have you guys even considered the permutations?

I mean imagine if you had to have a lawyer fill out a form that was recorded that addressed several key issues if you wanted to marry a second spouse. That's just too complex. Clearly to make things easy, we should just keep consenting adults from doing what they want.

Again, I'm not saying it's an unsolvable problem. We could certainly come up with laws and policies to address the issues (though it would take more work than you probably think). My only point is that it is an issue that would need to be addressed, and the fact that this issue exists is a qualitative and substantive difference between the legalization of gay marriage and the legalization of polygamy.

Th0r S1mpson
11-02-08, 04:08 PM
If you consider someone like Bill Gates, under monogamy his wealth can at most be split between one other partner. With a polygamous relationship, potentially dozens of women could have access to similarly vast amounts of his wealth.

Dozens? I was thinking spousal benefits would be made available to all female users of Vista Ultimate Edition.

Tracer Bullet
11-02-08, 06:59 PM
This is being posted for Thor:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/why-marriage-ma.html

Especially this part:

When people talk about gay marriage, they miss the point. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage. It's about family. It's about love. It isn't about religion. It's about civil marriage licenses. Churches can and should have the right to say no to marriage for gays in their congregations, just as Catholics say no to divorce, but divorce is still a civil option. These family values are not options for a happy and stable life. They are necessities. Putting gay relationships in some other category — civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever — may alleviate real human needs, but by their very euphemism, by their very separateness, they actually build a wall between gay people and their families. They put back the barrier many of us have spent a lifetime trying to erase.

fumanstan
11-02-08, 07:09 PM
I'm actually pretty astounded at how far the same sex marriage debate has moved in the last 8 years. The proposition in California that defined marriage as between a man and a woman in 2000 passed pretty overwhelmingly. People who were against same sex marriage at the time were passionately against anything that would legitimize gay or lesbian relationships, so for a lot of them even civil unions were unacceptable.

Now it seems most are amenable to that, only wanting to preserve the traditional notions of marriage. Yes/No on prop 8 is running pretty close to even in the polls I've seen and my sense is that it probably will go down, leaving the state court decision standing. That's a pretty remarkable swing.

I read an article reasoning that this was partly due to Prop 8 being on the same ballot as the Presidential election which generates a lot more interest, especially from a younger population who are generally more receptive to allowing gay marriage. Those are the people that i've seen rallying on various intersections around my town the last few weeks.

Personally, I voted No on 8 and very much against it. I just don't see the point in making an arbitrary distinction between a marriage and a civil union if they're the same thing.

argh923
11-03-08, 04:17 AM
It comes down to the Bible.
And God said no same sex sex.
Now for godless people if same sex marriage is fine then any kind of marriage should be fine. Like brother,sister etc.,etc.

Too bad the Bible doesn't run our country. Or did you forget about that pesky little "freedom of religion" part?

marty888
11-03-08, 08:07 AM
Meanwhile, I keep asking - if gay marriage can have a negative effect on society, will someone please point out a single instance of how non-gays have been adversely affected in Massachusetts in the past two years.

Th0r S1mpson
11-03-08, 11:26 AM
Marty888, It takes far more than 2 years to measure this kind of social impact and for it to permeate different levels of society beyond the rights granted, and even that takes time to sort out. Conversely, can you show me that gays are now completely accepted in Massachusetts now that they are allowed to marry? Has it broken down the "wall between gay people and their families?"

Bandoman
11-03-08, 12:09 PM
Gay mariage will have the same societal impact as interracial marriage - none, except to those who are so wrapped up in themselves that they can't let others live their lives.

LiquidSky
11-03-08, 12:11 PM
Gay mariage will have the same societal impact as interracial marriage - none, except to those who are so wrapped up in themselves that they can't let others live their lives.

:up:

Th0r S1mpson
11-03-08, 12:15 PM
Does anyone know how interracial marriage filtered into the church? I assume it took longer in some churches in the south, etc. Was interracial marriage outlawed nationally or only in certain states? I'd be interested to learn more about it.

Venusian
11-03-08, 12:16 PM
actually, many churches took a stand to support interracial marriage before it was legalized in certain states.

info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In 1966, the Presbyterian Church took a strong stand stating that they do not condemn or prohibit interracial marriages. The church found "no theological grounds for condemning or prohibiting marriage between consenting adults merely because of racial origin".[4] In that same year, the Unitarian Universalist Association declared that "laws which prohibit, inhibit or hamper marriage or cohabitation between persons because of different races, religions, or national origins should be nullified or repealed."[5] Months before the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia the Roman Catholic Church joined the movement, supporting interracial couples in their struggle for recognition of their right to marriage.

Rockmjd23
11-03-08, 12:22 PM
Does anyone know how interracial marriage filtered into the church? I assume it took longer in some churches in the south, etc. Was interracial marriage outlawed nationally or only in certain states? I'd be interested to learn more about it.
Depends on what you churches you're talking about. The Catholic and Presbyterian churches strongly supported the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia, the landmark interracial marriage case. I'm sure there were others that were quite against it.

kvrdave
11-03-08, 12:26 PM
My boss is a bit of a feminist and here is the problem she has with polygamy:

In theory, she doesn't care, except that polygamy always seems to be about oppression of women. You never see one woman with multiple husbands. It is always one guy with multiple wives and far too often, the women are brought into the marriages when they are extremely young, sometimes even minors. Almost like brain washing or a cult.

I think there is certainly some validity to this. Polygamy certainly does raise issues that gay marriage does not, including consent. Further, polygamy always seems mixed in with some kind of religious belief in the inferiority of women (or at least a duty to serve men).

Personally, I can't see why any man would want multiple wives. One is so more than enough.

I tend to agree, but I don't like the idea of "sometimes it is abused, so we can't even allow consenting adults do it because we need to be that careful." And if we should allow gay marriage in the face of religious beliefs, why shouldn't we allow polyandry because of religious beliefs?

And I really don't don't mean for this to come off as a reason to be against gay marriage. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to the hypocrisy that goes after rights for a minority they like but forgets about the other by saying "Let them fight their own fight." Well, if gay people didn't have the help of others, they would never win this one.

Anyway, the idea of "this non traditional marriage should be okay, but that one shouldn't" just doesn't sit well with reasoning.

And I would never take advantage of having a second wife. And I would pity anyone who does.

kvrdave
11-03-08, 12:29 PM
This is being posted for Thor:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/why-marriage-ma.html

Especially this part:

Good post. :up:

Rare for you, I know, so I thought I should publicly recognize it. :)

Red Dog
11-03-08, 12:30 PM
And I really don't don't mean for this to come off as a reason to be against gay marriage. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to the hypocrisy that goes after rights for a minority they like but forgets about the other by saying "Let them fight their own fight." Well, if gay people didn't have the help of others, they would never win this one.



Again, that's not reality. If gay people had to fight for polygamists, they would never win either. Do you want them to wait 50 or 100 or however many years until the polygamy fight can be won? Equal rights aren't achieved in one fell swoop. If they were, we wouldn't be discussing this issue today. It's ridiculous to expect a discriminated minority to carry all the other perceived minority stones up the mountain.

Have you criticized women for not fighting for black equal rights. Blacks for homosexual equal rights? Should women and blacks have waited around until the gay equal rights fight could have been won?

kvrdave
11-03-08, 12:40 PM
Again, that's not reality. If gay people had to fight for polygamists, they would never win either. Do you want them to wait 50 or 100 or however many years until the polygamy fight can be won? Equal rights aren't achieved in one fell swoop. If they were, we wouldn't be discussing this issue today. It's ridiculous to expect a discriminated minority to carry all the other perceived minority stones up the mountain.
I don't mind that they don't now while they fight their fight. I don't believe they will later either. They will perceive it that they are helping those that were against their right (for religious reasons) and they are probably correct. I simply disagree on the mindset, and I think I am correct about it.

Have you criticized women for not fighting for black equal rights. Blacks for homosexual equal rights? Should women and blacks have waited around until the gay equal rights fight could have been won?
Don't know that the opportunity has arisen.

I guess we can't just wait and see. I would predict that we won't hear a peep when it comes time. It's too difficult and complex to work anyway. -rolleyes-

Th0r S1mpson
11-03-08, 01:18 PM
Dave, why do you care if your other wives are called wives legally any way? Is it that your current wife will only allow legally recognized wives to share the house and the rest have to remain "renters?" You can always draft up some papers to authorize your other wives, excuse me, "renters" to have a vote in your medical care.

kvrdave
11-03-08, 01:27 PM
Dave, why do you care if your other wives are called wives legally any way? Is it that your current wife will only allow legally recognized wives to share the house and the rest have to remain "renters?" You can always draft up some papers to authorize your other wives, excuse me, "renters" to have a vote in your medical care.

:lol: I have zero desire to have another wife. My reasoning on this has been formed by two things. Big love on HBO is one of them, as well as specials about it on HBO, and some shows I have seen on non traditional "marriage." Tends to be hippy stuff and mormon stuff. But I have seen hippy stuff that included 2 husbands and 2 wives. Not my thing. But watching a show on them, the interaction with the kids, and all the other crap, I can't see why it should be allowed in whatever fashion they want. I would even say that I disagree with it. But that really only means that I would have nothing to do with it in my own life. But you have the same situation as with being gay. you have good, honest people that effectively have to hide who they are from society, when they aren't doing anything that will harm society.

I'm a frickin' bleeding heart liberal. :lol:

Red Dog
11-03-08, 01:39 PM
I don't mind that they don't now while they fight their fight. I don't believe they will later either. They will perceive it that they are helping those that were against their right (for religious reasons) and they are probably correct. I simply disagree on the mindset, and I think I am correct about it.


Don't know that the opportunity has arisen.

I guess we can't just wait and see. I would predict that we won't hear a peep when it comes time. It's too difficult and complex to work anyway. -rolleyes-


But the opportunity has arisen. Do you see blacks or women lining up to the support the gay push for equal rights? If not, why don't you come out and criticize those former disadvantaged minorities on their mindset?

Why do you keep harping on that last point? Do you not agree that the numerous default rules would have to be changed? It can be done, but there's no need to mock those who say there are complexities about it - particularly when you have ignored the valid points that JasonF and I have made on the default rules.

Th0r S1mpson
11-03-08, 01:40 PM
Do you see blacks or women lining up to the support the gay push for equal rights? If so, why don't you come out and criticize those former disadvantaged minorities on their mindset?

Because "Stupid blacks and women -rolleyes-" doesn't come across too well. :( Unless Michelle Obama says it.

kvrdave
11-03-08, 01:48 PM
But the opportunity has arisen. Do you see blacks or women lining up to the support the gay push for equal rights? If not, why don't you come out and criticize those former disadvantaged minorities on their mindset?
I am talking about opportunities for me to point it out around here. I may have missed some.

Why do you keep harping on that last point? Do you not agree that the numerous default rules would have to be changed? It can be done, but there's no need to mock those who say there are complexities about it - particularly when you have ignored the valid points that JasonF and I have made on the default rules.

A valid concern is a valid concern. I do not believe that it is reason to keep consenting adults from doing what they want, however. So while the concern is valid, I think it has such an easy answer that I don't give it much weight.

Red Dog
11-03-08, 01:55 PM
I am talking about opportunities for me to point it out around here. I may have missed some.

A valid concern is a valid concern. I do not believe that it is reason to keep consenting adults from doing what they want, however. So while the concern is valid, I think it has such an easy answer that I don't give it much weight.


Well, consider the floor open to point it out. ;)

JasonF nor I argued that it wasn't possible nor should be used as an excuse - simply that it is a far more complex process than the necessary changes to the default rules to accomodate gay marriage. Not sure what your 'easy answer' is? Do you mean the changes to the default rules would be easy? Or are you saying the easy answer is written agreements between multiple spouses? That's a private solution - perfectly valid, but you still need default rules in the absense of such agreements and those default rules would have to be rewritten, and 'easy' is the last word I would use to describe that process. After all, then you're getting government lawyers involved. ;)

kvrdave
11-03-08, 01:57 PM
I don't know that you do. I think a requirement to record such a document meeting minimum requirements when you get a second marriage license would be easier. Don't fill that out and you don't get the second marriage certificate. And I think that does a better job than default rules for something like this.

Red Dog
11-03-08, 02:06 PM
I don't know that you do. I think a requirement to record such a document meeting minimum requirements when you get a second marriage license would be easier. Don't fill that out and you don't get the second marriage certificate. And I think that does a better job than default rules for something like this.


"Minimum requirements." So what about the issues that fall outside the "minimum requirements?" You still need the default rules for those.

So would you be on board with requiring all people requesting a marriage certificate properly lodging a prenuptual agreement, power of attorney, living will, and last will and testament with the clerk of the court? This would do a better job than relying on default rules.

kvrdave
11-03-08, 02:12 PM
We already have default rules for a 2 person marriage, so no.

marty888
11-03-08, 02:21 PM
Marty888, It takes far more than 2 years to measure this kind of social impact and for it to permeate different levels of society beyond the rights granted, and even that takes time to sort out. Conversely, can you show me that gays are now completely accepted in Massachusetts now that they are allowed to marry? Has it broken down the "wall between gay people and their families?"


1) So what "social impact" of a negative nature are you forcasting?

2) Minorities are <i>never</i> fully accepted - there are people in this country who still do not accept blacks as equals. We shouldn't base our concepts of fairness and dignity on the attitudes and prejudices of the extreme.

Red Dog
11-03-08, 02:27 PM
We already have default rules for a 2 person marriage, so no.

So default rules acceptable for 2, but not 3+? Makes no sense. If you're going to require a party of 3+ to contract their terms of marriage, then shouldn't we do that for 2 as well?

Th0r S1mpson
11-03-08, 02:40 PM
I don't think there is a legal right to equal amounts of paperwork.

Red Dog
11-03-08, 02:52 PM
I don't think there is a legal right to equal amounts of paperwork.

I didn't say that, but to say default rules are adequate for 2, but they're not for 3+ doesn't seem consistent to me.

As for your point, if you make the process too burdensome, then you might see legal challenges.