You know it seems to me that most religious people have argued their case so poorly against gay marriage that atheists and other secular-minded folks have forgotten that, yes, there can be secular arguments against gay marriage too. Sorry, the issue is not limited to religion vs. secularism or atheism.
Not too long ago I also used to support gay marriage and the LGBT movement in general, so I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of "hating homosexuals" or "homophobia".
Now first of all, let's establish what the point of marriage (as a purely legal institution, not religious) even is.
Property? No. If it was all about property management there are other arrangements that you can make, such as donations and wills and testaments.
Love? Many people would be tempted to say yes, marriage is about two people loving each other and living together and stuff. But if love is all there is to marriage, then why do you even need marriage? Is there any legitimate reason why the government should know or keep track of who you're fucking? Keep in mind that depending on what country you live in, marriage may include certain legal benefits such as tax breaks or the ability to claim half the pension of your loved one if he dies EVEN if you've never worked a day in your life and have no pension, as is the case in Romania.
None of this is actually justified by "love" and as for being necessary so if you die the police notify your lover or whatever, that's probably going to happen anyway when they pay a visit to the residence as part of their investigation. Also with Facebook now word gets out pretty fast.
At best this might be an argument in favor of some form of legal partnership. NOT redefining marriage altogether.
So what is the real purpose of having this institution? Children. Marriage provides a stable environment in which to raise them and involves a level of committment above simply "boyfriend and girlfriend", which can end at any time in a heartbeat. Since children are the future generation it makes sense that a government would have some interest in their upbringing as well, hence marriage as a legal institution exists.
Given that homosexual or lesbian couples can neither produce children of their own, nor provide the most optimal substitute parents for orphans, children best being raised by a mother and a father (preferably their natural mother and father as the connection is stronger) rather than simply two people of random genders, I don't really see what's so "progressive" about redefining marriage from male+female to person+person.
In fact I see just the exact opposite. A society that no longer deems motherhood and fatherhood to be valuable has in fact regressed. In a way it already has now with single mothers encouraged to remain single through government programs. And lack of fathers and mothers is arguably the biggest factor in youth dysfunctionality, young people without fathers or without mothers being far more likely to drop out of school, do drugs or get in trouble with the authorities.
The consequences of "marriage equality" may include for example the inability to prioritize adoption of orphans to straight normal male+female couples over other couples or single people. Something that should definitely be supported in any sane society.
It may also pave the way for unlimited polygamy and given the aggressive nature of political correctors on the left "polygamophobia" will likely be their next social crusade against the "evil intolerant" west.
"Progressives" will argue that this definition of marriage as male+female is "discriminatory" because it means gays and lesbians "aren't allowed to marry". But this is pure sophistry given that gay and lesbian inviduals can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the opposite sex. The fact that they are not interested in such a relation is no excuse for accusing the system of being "discriminatory" any more than a single lonely person accusing the system of being "discriminatory" because nobody willl marry him/her.
This is essentially a fallacy of division:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
Assuming that because unions (groups) of people are treated differently (in this case a gay couple and a straight couple, OR for that matter a straight couple that's monogamous vs. a straight polygamous group), then automatically individuals that makeup those unions are treated differently, and therefore their rights are being infringed on or something.
"Progressives" will then argue that this is no different than racial segregation and bans on interracial marriage. But again this is a bad example. There is no basis in either reason or natural law for defining marriage as only between men and women of the same race, given that interracial unions produce healthy children just as much as monoracial unions. There's also no difference between a black male and a white male. There are tremendous differences between males and females, both in terms of body and mind (in terms of preferences and behavior, not level of intellect).
QuoteNot too long ago I also used to support gay marriage and the LGBT movement in general, so I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of "hating homosexuals" or "homophobia".
Sure I can. I can also seriously accuse you of being a bigot and a moron.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2015, 07:59:21 AM
Sure I can. I can also seriously accuse you of being a bigot and a moron.
And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?
Posting trollish bigotry is not very productive either.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?
Having a mother and a father is nice. Having a married couple that includes a mother and a father is nice. But you don't have to have loving parents that include both a mother and a father. Your attempt to prove otherwise will be amusing.
The OP's premise is wrong. Marriage is not about children.
If marriage were about children, then elderly couples, infertile couples and people who do not intend to have children would be forbidden from getting married, and gay couples who plan to have children will be welcomed to marry with fanfare.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2015, 08:12:44 AM
The OP's premise is wrong. Marriage is not about children.
If marriage were about children, then elderly couples, infertile couples and people who do not intend to have children would be forbidden from getting married, and gay couples who plan to have children will be welcomed to marry with fanfare.
Government policies are often based on what is likely to happen, not on what is guaranteed to happen. No law or institution ever addresses issues perfectly because it's impossible. By your logic there shouldn't be ages of consent laws because not everyone over 16 or 18 or whatever is actually mature enough for sex and maybe there shouldn't be a speed limit either if you're a super skilled driver eh?
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2015, 08:12:44 AMelderly couples
That I disagree with too. Elderly couples often become grandparents so they still have a role to play in raising the next generation. They may also continue to provide support for their off-spring even past 18.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2015, 08:12:44 AMpeople who do not intend to have children
That can still happen by the way even if you protect youself, so better they be raised in a marriage if that happens. It's not full proof but it's definitely a level of commitment above just "dating".
As for gay couples having children, that's biologically impossible. At best they can only adopt other children that straight couples abandon or can't take care of, but if they want to do that they should wait in line along with single people and other non-conventional family structures.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2015, 08:10:49 AM
Posting trollish bigotry is not very productive either.
That is all you've done so far here.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 08:30:34 AMElderly couples often become grandparents so they still have a role to play in raising the next generation.
Ok, so two elderly, childless people get married... and then grandchildren are suddenly generated out of thin air. Makes sense... (facepalm)
I smell me a troll. Nobody is this stupid.
If the goal is truly to improve the quality of life for children a more effective strategy is to provide incentives for being a better parent, not for being married. Marriage doesn't equal better parenting.
What about couples that get married and never have kids? It is about making a commitment to another person and it has a legal basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_law
QuoteA marriage, by definition, bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:
Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over some portion of a spouse’s labor or property.
Giving a husband/wife responsibility for some portion of a spouse’s debts.
Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
These rights and obligations vary considerably among societies, and among groups within a society.[1]
You can do several things that establish guardianship for a child, confer property rights or establish inheritances and what ever you want. In marriage, with one act, you confer several rights to a couple that in may supercede other rights and obligations. Marriage is for a reason. My opinion is that you are looking for reasons to object to gay marriage which makes you a bigot.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 08:30:34 AM
That is all you've done so far here.
You are accusing me of being a bigot? Really? You aren't even thinking about what you write here, are you?
The argument is a straw man from the outset. first of all there are several reasons for marriage as I showed in my post. Read the article. To assume one reason ignores many others. The fact that you have chosen to stipulate a particular reason and ignore others indicates a biased viewpoint.
It isn't about "supporting gay marriage." Consider the fact that the judges who have approved through the legal system the concept of gay marriage are learned men who know the law very well. If it were in fact a lackluster argument there would be a number of different decisions, but they have in fact been uniform in nature. It is a single act defined by law set down clear back in jolly old England centuries ago, that defines a set of legal rights between two people and is one of the foundations of our legal system and modern law. Gee, all of them pre-law classes I took back in college finally have some use.
(edit) Stromboli likes Mermaid. Stromboli thinks Mermaid is awesome.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 07:40:43 AM
Now first of all, let's establish what the point of marriage (as a purely legal institution, not religious) even is.
Property? No. If it was all about property management there are other arrangements that you can make, such as donations and wills and testaments.
None of this is actually justified by "love".
So what is the real purpose of having this institution? Children. Marriage provides a stable environment in which to raise them and involves a level of committment above simply "boyfriend and girlfriend", which can end at any time in a heartbeat. Since children are the future generation it makes sense that a government would have some interest in their upbringing as well, hence marriage as a legal institution exists.
So marriage is not about property or love? It's about having children? And apparently only about children? Way to create a definition to support your argument! You do realize that people do marry for love and for property issues. And you do realize that not everyone marries for the purpose of procreation. I say the purpose of marriage is to make a commitment; Nothing more. See? You or I can arbitrarily decree what the purpose of marriage is, and we can even exclude every other reason why people marry, but it's just arbitrary, nothing more than an opinion, and neither one is universally true for everyone else.
In fact, you ARE a homophobe. You're just denying it by hiding behind some crap you made up.
Quote from: stromboli on February 02, 2015, 09:07:41 AM
What about couples that get married and never have kids? It is about making a commitment to another person and it has a legal basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_law
You can do several things that establish guardianship for a child, confer property rights or establish inheritances and what ever you want. In marriage, with one act, you confer several rights to a couple that in may supercede other rights and obligations. Marriage is for a reason. My opinion is that you are looking for reasons to object to gay marriage which makes you a bigot.
"Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over some portion of a spouse’s labor or property.
Giving a husband/wife responsibility for some portion of a spouse’s debts.
Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses."
That is true, but there is a purpose to all these rights and obligations. An end-game if you will, and that's to foster an environment as suitable as possible to bringing children into this world and raising them.
I see that as a good reason to get government involved.
I don't see "love" or "fucking" as good enough reasons to get the government involved and some of the things on that list could be handled either by changing laws or establishing civil partnerships. Personally I think anyone should be able to visit anyone in prison or hospital, provided the person hospitalized or incarcerated agrees and it's barred by law as part of his punishment, such as mafia bosses who try to run their empire from prison or terrorists in supermax prisons.
Why do you need to redefine marriage itself, explain that?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 02, 2015, 09:03:18 AM
If the goal is truly to improve the quality of life for children a more effective strategy is to provide incentives for being a better parent, not for being married. Marriage doesn't equal better parenting.
Again, marriage shows a level of committment from both people involved. If you can't take that step, then maybe you're not ready to raise children. Because it's much easier to walk away from a dating relationship than from marriage. A phone call or message can end a relationship. To end marriage you need to go to court.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2015, 08:49:30 AM
Ok, so two elderly, childless people get married... and then grandchildren are suddenly generated out of thin air. Makes sense... (facepalm)
I smell me a troll. Nobody is this stupid.
I really hate strawmen. The truth is most married elderly couples you see around you married while they were young and I pointed out their union doesn't suddenly become irrelevant when they stop having children. They still provide support for their adult children and sometimes contribute to raising their children.
As for elderly couples who marry now and can't possibly have children or live long enough to raise them if they could, again, laws aren't perfect, and I would even argue they shouldn't try to be because it would require too much work and too much intrusion into personal life to verify every case in particular at such detail. It can also lead to abuse to due corruption in government. Should we allow adults to molest 12 year olds if the 12 year old can be proven to be "mature enough"? We we prevent full grown 18+ adults from consenting to sex if they're "immature", some of them probably are? Should we allow professional drivers to break the speed limit cause they're "awesome" at driving and will NEVER make accidents, allegedly? Like this is the type of shit you're saying when you make such statements. I already addressed it and I'm not going to bother again unless you can counter it.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 02, 2015, 08:11:10 AM
Having a mother and a father is nice. Having a married couple that includes a mother and a father is nice. But you don't have to have loving parents that include both a mother and a father. Your attempt to prove otherwise will be amusing.
No, it's not just "nice to have", it's pretty important so the child can learn different personality traits. Boys and girls also need role models for their own gender and you might not get that in a gay family upbringing.
I would bring up Elliot Rodger to point out this problem. Now, he didn't actually lack a father, but his father was largely absent from his life which is almost as bad. He never learned how to "be a man" which lead to his misery from failure with women. And you're seriously going to sit there an tell me fathers are irrelevant?
I dunno about you but growing up there were things I could not discuss with my mother, such as male sexual issues.
Girls - how are they going to develop their feminine personalities without a positive female role model, i.e. the mother? The first contact children have with the real world is through their mother.
Now girls without fathers are far more likely to end up being exploited by unscrupulous men, the kind who hook them on drugs, exploit them sexually and emotionally as teens, get them to run away from home etc.
I'm sorry but this social engineering program is dangerous and is not going to work.
Quote from: SGOS on February 02, 2015, 09:46:09 AM
So marriage is not about property or love? It's about having children? And apparently only about children? Way to create a definition to support your argument! You do realize that people do marry for love and for property issues. And you do realize that not everyone marries for the purpose of procreation. I say the purpose of marriage is to make a commitment; Nothing more. See? You or I can arbitrarily decree what the purpose of marriage is, and we can even exclude every other reason why people marry, but it's just arbitrary, nothing more than an opinion, and neither one is universally true for everyone else.
In fact, you ARE a homophobe. You're just denying it by hiding behind some crap you made up.
To address your point, and maybe I should have clarified, when I said it's not about property I meant don't need to be legally married to someone to do thing like:
1. Co-own property. Like, if I want to share half of my house with my friend (whether that's a female friend, gay lover, or just BFF), all I have to do (at least as far as my country's laws go) is go to the notary's office and legally donate half of my house to him or her. Oh sure, some taxes but will be paid, but that goes for any transaction.
2. Inherit - I can write a will and testament where I can include anyone I want for any reason.
3. Donate property.
4. Even manage someone else's property. Attorneys can do it. So can your friends if you empower them through a legal document to act on your behalf.
If this isn't easily doable by any two individuals in your country, including two friends, then maybe the laws should be changed to make things easier. Or maybe we can discuss civil partnerships. You do not need to redefine marriage which has far more complex implications than changing how property or inheritance works. Got it?
As for "love", the idea that I need the government's involvement to love someone or fuck them is quite absurd.
Every statement you make is based on a fallacious initial argument. That marriage exists intact in a modern age says something about the importance of it, and it is not based on a single reason but several reasons. As I pointed out, there is a singular uniformity in the decisions made by the courts in approving gay marriage. Otherwise the decisions would be ambiguous and vary greatly. The CONCEPT of marriage as described by law in a society is itself a comprehensive set of legal precedents under one title. Marriage is a concept as is that of moral conduct or any other entity describable with legal terminology.
The uniformity of approval of gay marriage across the legal spectrum is itself a clear argument to its validity. Your opinion fails in the light of a considerable body of approval by law.
Let's put this another way.
If human reproduction did not exist, sex was purely for pleasure and humans just popped out of trees fully grown with the maturity of 25 year olds complete with high school or college level knowledge, would either gay or straight marriage make sense from a legal standpoint? Or to put it simply, would marriage (as a legal not social institution) make sense in a world without children?
And why? Why should Sarah and Bob have access to all sorts of benefits that other people don't, like maybe an opportunity to pay less taxes or whatever? Is there any particular reason the government should be subsidizing that kind of union in that kind of a hypothetical world? Yeah they fuck and live together, so what a third party might say?
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 07:40:43 AM
"Progressives" will argue that this definition of marriage as male+female is "discriminatory" because it means gays and lesbians "aren't allowed to marry". But this is pure sophistry given that gay and lesbian inviduals can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the opposite sex.
By the same logic, banning interracial marriages isn't discriminatory because anyone can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the same race.
It takes one hell of a mental gymnastics routine to not see that as discriminatory.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 07:40:43 AM
You know it seems to me that most religious people have argued their case so poorly against gay marriage that atheists and other secular-minded folks have forgotten that, yes, there can be secular arguments against gay marriage too.
Anyone from any religion, race, or creed can make an argument for or against anything. The trick is making an argument that isn't nuttier than candybar shit.
What I don't get is why anyone gives a flying fuck who marries whom. It's the same thing as telling someone what color pants to wear or what to order at a restaurant. It's nobody's business. And being a douchebag about it isn't going to change that some people are gay.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 10:05:51 AM
Even manage someone else's property. Attorneys can do it. So can your friends if you empower them through a legal document to act on your behalf.
If this isn't easily doable by any two individuals in your country, including two friends, then maybe the laws should be changed to make things easier. Or maybe we can discuss civil partnerships. You do not need to redefine marriage which has far more complex implications than changing how property or inheritance works. Got it?
As for "love", the idea that I need the government's involvement to love someone or fuck them is quite absurd.
What gives you the authority, knowledge, and experience to arbitrarily decide what should be changed and what should not?
QuoteGiven that homosexual or lesbian couples can neither produce children of their own, nor provide the most optimal substitute parents for orphans, /snip
Um, please provide evidence that having 2 parents of the same sex is not optimal.
Also, being adopted by loving people of either gender is leaps and bounds better than staying in the system.
Even if your argument that children are the only real reason for marriage were correct (and it isn't), you follow that up with yet another fallacious argument. This is your opinion, not a fact.
Quote
No, it's not just "nice to have", it's pretty important so the child can learn different personality traits. Boys and girls also need role models for their own gender and you might not get that in a gay family upbringing.
Believe me, I'm not one to jump up in a social-warrior fit and shout out: 'We don't need your cisgender bias, check your privilige!". But I'm not a fan of telling others how to live their lives either. Boys only need role models for their gender if we assign importance to the concept of gender. Same for girls.
Now, I'll be completely honest, if I ever have a son I'll give him cars when he's a kid. A girl I'll probably give dolls. That's how I was raised and where my starting point in raising my children will be. But if my kid shows signs of having interests in things we typically assign to the 'other gender', I hope I am freeminded enough to accept that.
If my future hypothetical son would want to dance ballet, or if he liked boys, or if he wanted to design clothes... So be it. If my future hypothetical daughter would want to become a car-mechanic, or if she liked girls, or if she wanted to play rugby... So be it.
Now if you mean "Boys and girls also need role models for their own
SEX and you might not get that in a gay family upbringing." Then I still won't necessarily agree with what you implicate. In one-parent families you typically have more problems on a financial basis, which accounts for a lot of disadvantages and strife a kid in such a situation will grow up with. But the lack of a 'male rolemodel' for a boy, or a 'female rolemodel' for a girl are not the main problem.
Because yes, in multiple European studies there are statistically significant 'slightly' (and I do want to emphasise 'slightly') higher rates of children having identity problems when they grow up in homosexual parent families. But these tend to arise, if I remember my studies correctly, around the time that children start to find their peers more important and thus are more susceptible to possible bigotry and preconceptions. To give you an idea, the 'slightly higher' rates are about the same as with adopted children with different-sex parents.
I'm not gonna lie, I imagine it can be hard for a kid who grows up with gay parents. This is true, but this is no reason to deny gay marriage, nor the right for homosexuals and lesbians to raise kids in a same-sex marriage or partnership. The problem at this point lies with those who hold contempt or preconceptions against these kinds of parents and these kinds of marriages. They are what makes it harder for a child growing up with same-sex marriages. We have to fight for the rights of those people who are typically more sure they want children, who don't conceive them accidentally, who (as a couple) can provide the financial stability that improves the life-conditions of the child and who tend to, relatively, adopt more 'unwanted' kids in the first place.
Marriage shouldn't be kept as a union between a man and a woman solely. It may indeed have been intended as such in the beginning. But many laws and rules and such have been changed throughout time because we come to a point in which we realize they are not just or fair. And you're right, lesbians can marry, they just have to mary guys in some states. The opposite for homosexual men. But is that fair? Is that just? Is that an arrangement with an eye on the individuality and equality of every human being which we are supposed to hold so dear? Just because an idea is old, doesn't make it right. A tradition can be wonderfull, but musn't be carried blindly nor be allowed to determine the future without scrutiny. Me personally, I maintain initial, and I think healthy, scepticism concerning tenacious social constructs. Especially for those that came into being before 'la déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen' was even written. (Or, credit where credit is due, the declaration of independence.)
Quote
I would bring up Elliot Rodger to point out this problem. Now, he didn't actually lack a father, but his father was largely absent from his life which is almost as bad. He never learned how to "be a man" which lead to his misery from failure with women. And you're seriously going to sit there an tell me fathers are irrelevant?
Might help your case in the future if you use an actual example of someone who went on a killing spree who had gay parents, rather than one who had straight parents and a relationship that didn't work out. Because parents staying together while they hate eachother or don't want to be together anymore but do so for financial reasons or the kids or whatever, actually doesn't have a better influence on the child's upbringing. But you'd still be implying a causal link that you can't prove with such an example. So best leave these appeals to emotion lay.
Quote
I dunno about you but growing up there were things I could not discuss with my mother, such as male sexual issues.
So sorry to hear that. I could. And I'm glad I could.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzUFYNjUTcM
If marriage is about a stable, enduring relationship between a heterosexual couple for the purpose of raising children shouldn't only heterosexuals with children be married? A woman in a heterosexual couple becomes pregnant, the couple marries, they are given the legal benefits of marriage, and perhaps even some other perks, and then the government makes it extremely difficult for them to divorce. This would focus the government benefits on the children, give couples without children less government interference and discouraging single parenthood, because only married heterosexual couples would get the government benefits. You have made good arguments why the government should not be involved in personal relationships unless children are being raised, so doesn't it make sense to give marriage benefits to the parents who actually need them?
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 07:40:43 AM
So what is the real purpose of having this institution? Children.
Fuck off, buddy.
People have children outside of marriage just fine so fuck off, buddy.
Marriage has no purpose. We'd be better off without it.
QuoteIt's all about the children (or at least the anatomical possibility thereof)
A very nice dissection of the flawed logic used by the anti gay marriage crowd.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 02, 2015, 03:29:59 PMIf marriage is about a stable, enduring relationship between a heterosexual couple for the purpose of raising children shouldn't only heterosexuals with children be married? A woman in a heterosexual couple becomes pregnant, the couple marries, they are given the legal benefits of marriage, and perhaps even some other perks, and then the government makes it extremely difficult for them to divorce.
With that whole marriage is about children thing I think Vlad was shooting for no queers allowed, not stopping childless heteroes from getting hitched or restricting divorce. But it's amusing just how many nasty implications this argument has. I don't think Vlad thought this all the way through.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 02, 2015, 03:53:40 PM
With that whole marriage is about children thing I think Vlad was shooting for no queers allowed, not stopping childless heteroes from getting hitched or restricting divorce. But it's amusing just how many nasty implications this argument has. I don't think Vlad thought this all the way through.
Those who oppose gay marriage seem to be flailing in desperation with their arguments (That's "flailing as in swinging your arms wildly about). So much so that it strikes me as a last ditch hail Mary ploy. I suppose, many of them actually believe their arguments, but as the guy in that last video pointed out, there is a certain comical failure of the child rearing argument. But I've sensed the same comical failure in their other arguments as well. In the past, there was no need to think such arguments through. Well, they actually didn't even bother with arguments. They anti gay marriage crowd was simply right because well, they were right. People are stopping to think this through now, and this is a major and quite unusual thing in political affairs.
:eyes: Marriage is a man made institution that was formally decided by a couples parents by the Church's approval, whether the couple wanted to or not. We progressed to making it legal for any marriage between man and wife that were as young as 13 that wanted to get married with parents approval, and then we made it legal for anyone that wants to that are adult male or female. But now we have progressed farther and made it legal for consenting adults, man and man, and woman and woman. So how is this not progressive? Marriage is not for the production of children. How many man and woman marriages have resulted in harm to children by brain washing them when they are too young to question authority with superstitious nonsense?
Why does the Church, or churches, have any say in a secular society what a marriage is, or just to have children? In fact the reason we have so much pollution and environmental damage and the quality of life going down hill is because of TOO many children and people because of religious doctrine that is living in some imaginary world instead of reality. :fU: :axe: :butt: :kidra: Take your fucking delusions somewhere else, and your lying fucking mouth that you supported gay marriage. What are you, a part of the idiotic Quiver Society? :wall: :toilet: Solitary
A. There are obvious reasons people get married- having to do with property rights, inheritance rights, parenting rights and so on. The law provides a specific legal standing to married couple in such instances as not being able to force a wife to testify against a husband and so on.
B. Heretofore, gays as a couple were denied those rights as defined by law; all they have asked for is the same legal concessions given to heterosexual married couples.
C. The Constitution of the U.S. does not specifically state in any way that marriage is distinct between a man and a woman. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was created under the Clinton administration to address that issue.
D. Under Obama's administration, he (and others) vacated DOMA for exactly that reason; it didn't meet the test of constitutionality.
E. The overturning of Prop 8 (for the reasons listed above) in court and affirmed in every court thereafter, effectively killed not only Prop 8 but DOMA as well. There are now more states that allow gay marriage than there are states that don't.
F. The reason that gay marriage has won so convincingly in court is that, constitutionally or otherwise, the only arguments against it are either religious based or based on cultural bias. In a secular court weighing all options purely on the basis of merit, THERE IS NO GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. WHICH IS WHY IT HAS WON SO CONVINCINGLY IN COURT.
Quote from: Solitary on February 02, 2015, 05:49:36 PM
Take your fucking delusions somewhere else, and your lying fucking mouth that you supported gay marriage.
Oh I see what your delusion is now. You think you can read minds.
How about you prove that I did not support gay marriage? Do you know me? Do you know the history of all positions I have ever advocated or opposed? No.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2015, 11:29:19 AM
What I don't get is why anyone gives a flying fuck who marries whom. It's the same thing as telling someone what color pants to wear or what to order at a restaurant. It's nobody's business.
Marriage is not entirely a private matter given that it often involes benefits that the government provides and which single people or unmarried couples don't have access to. For example tax breaks.
Can you think of any good reason why two people should be taxed differently (i.e. less) just because they fuck? I can't. Like, do you not realize that when certain people pay less in taxes, other people have to fill in the gap?
Quote from: Mermaid on February 02, 2015, 11:29:19 AMAnd being a douchebag about it isn't going to change that some people are gay.
Who says I want to "change gays"? Stick the subject which is whether or not redefining marriage in this way is a good thing or not. I also helps when you're calling people douchebags to not be one yourself.
Also it's kind of ironic you're so vocal about this, given that most homosexuals aren't even interested in marriage. Sorry it's fact. Even when the UK had civil partnership (something I don't necessarily oppose, assuming you can clearly define what that implies and how it is distinct from marriage) only about 106k people actually applied and that was over a 6 year period since its inception. The UK population is somewhere over 60 million with anywhere between 1-6% being gay. Doesn't seem like there's a lot of people rushing towards this.
Quote from: SGOS on February 02, 2015, 11:51:58 AM
What gives you the authority, knowledge, and experience to arbitrarily decide what should be changed and what should not?
I could ask you the same question. You're in the camp of those advocating for redefining marriage, one of the core institutions of society, in such a fundamental way.
Quote from: Aroura33 on February 02, 2015, 12:25:27 PM
Also, being adopted by loving people of either gender is leaps and bounds better than staying in the system.
Well sure, being adopted by a single guy who plays video games 8 hours a day is probably better than staying in the system, but that doesn't mean single parenthood is equivalent to standard father+mother parenthood, nor that the government needs to encourage these unconventional "families".
Remember that "marriage equality" implies straight couples will not have priority over gay ones in adoptions.
Anyway read my other posts again since I did address the concerns you have.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 02, 2015, 11:20:23 AM
By the same logic, banning interracial marriages isn't discriminatory because anyone can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the same race.
It takes one hell of a mental gymnastics routine to not see that as discriminatory.
I already addressed why it is not comparable to interracial marriage. And as I said, there is no basis in reason or natural law to limit marriage based on race. Straight interracial couples can produce children and they can produce them healthy.
Quote from: Solitary on February 02, 2015, 05:49:36 PM
Why does the Church, or churches, have any say in a secular society what a marriage is, or just to have children?
When I was little, I assumed you got married in a church because it was like a law or something. It didn't occur to me until later that marriage is a state license, and the church has managed to weasel it's way into the business. It's just sticking its nose in giving people the idea that a marriage should be done in a church to sanctify everything. WTF?? Sanctify? For what purpose? It's not like it re-virginizes the bride or something.
People don't go around asking, "Has your marriage been sanctified? I do hope it's been sanctified? What church sanctified your marriage? I don't know what I'd do if my marriage was un-sanctified. I would be living in sin, and I would probably go to Hell."
Well, I suppose there's lot's of room in the church, so you can have all your friends come and watch. That's kind of a good thing. You get blessed by a man of the cloth. Although really, it's the bride and the groom marrying each other. The guy up front with the funny hat is just for show. He's often just some guy you hardly know. He's sanctifying the event in the name of the Lord God. But actually, the only benefits, like filing your income tax jointly, or being able to pull the plug on your wealthy spouse, if he/she is in a coma are awarded to you by the state. As per usual, what you get from the church is just a bunch of diddly crap that doesn't do you one bit of good.
And when it's time to get a divorce, you have to have it approved by the state. The church won't be anywhere around. It only wants the fun part.
Quote from: SGOS on Today at 11:51:58 AM
What gives you the authority, knowledge, and experience to arbitrarily decide what should be changed and what should not?
Vlad:
I could ask you the same question.
SGOS:
Yes, you could, but I'd disclose up front that it's my opinion, not some self evident fact that marriage has to be between a man and a woman, because, well, "it's just because it is."
From For Better or Worse? The Case for Gay (and Straight) Marriage (http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_1_the_case_for_marriage/)
QuoteCivilizing young males is one of any society's biggest problems. Wherever unattached males gather in packs, you see no end of trouble: wildings in Central Park, gangs in Los Angeles, soccer hooligans in Britain, skinheads in Germany, fraternity hazings in universities, grope-lines in the military and, in a different but ultimately no less tragic way, the bathhouses and wanton sex of gay San Francisco or New York in the 1970s.
For taming men, marriage is unmatched. "Of all the institutions through which men may pass--schools, factories, the military--marriage has the largest effect," Wilson writes in The Moral Sense. (A token of the casualness of current thinking about marriage is that the man who wrote those words could, later in the very same book, say that government should care about fostering families for "scarcely any other" reason than children.) If marriage--that is, the binding of men into couples--did nothing else, its power to settle men, to keep them at home and out of trouble, would be ample justification for its special status.
Of course, women and older men don't generally travel in marauding or orgiastic packs. But in their case the second rationale comes into play. A second enormous problem for society is what to do when someone is beset by some sort of burdensome contingency. It could be cancer, a broken back, unemployment or depression; it could be exhaustion from work or stress under pressure. If marriage has any meaning at all, it is that, when you collapse from a stroke, there will be at least one other person whose "job" is to drop everything and come to your aid; or that when you come home after being fired by the postal service there will be someone to persuade you not to kill the supervisor.
Obviously, both rationales--the need to settle males and the need to have people looked after--apply to sterile people as well as fertile ones, and apply to childless couples as well as to ones with children. The first explains why everybody feels relieved when the town delinquent gets married, and the second explains why everybody feels happy when an aging widow takes a second husband. From a social point of view, it seems to me, both rationales are far more compelling as justifications of marriage's special status than, say, love. And both of them apply to homosexuals as well as to heterosexuals.
[. . .]
Marriage is a deal between a couple and society, not just between two people: society recognizes the sanctity and autonomy of the pair-bond, and in exchange each spouse commits to being the other's nurse, social worker and policeman of first resort. Each marriage is its own little society within society. Any step that weakens the deal by granting the legal benefits of marriage without also requiring the public commitment is begging for trouble.
Me thinks your opinion of the origin of marriage may be a bit skewed. Marriage was the idea of men, not just any men mind you, but the lesser of the best. The strongest never had to worry about getting laid, he took what he wanted,,kinda like kings, this trickled down to his followers. But as tribes and society evolved it turned out that by gosh, every man would like to get laid once in awhile without being beat up by the strongest and his band of merry rapists. So, a kind of mutual arrangement was slowly established for the benefit of the whole, allow each man his own fuckhole and hands off to others and men can go about without trying to secretly kill each other. Lo and behold, the idea had some merits to the tribe/society as a whole and everyone saw it was good and then man made god and he agreed. The end….kinda…then religion really went fucktard and also regressed to letting the kings and leaders fuck whoever they wanted with impunity,albeit with the grace of god on their side. The end.
(no sexism was intended, but implied, sue our ancestors)
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 08:04:07 AM
And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?
I consider that, while your personal opinion, to be an insult, and very small minded of you.
you think the definition of a perfect family comes into one construct, the mother and father ratio? Well what do you say to single parents raising children, where the partner has either died, or left, leaving them with the children? How many times do you think this happens in any home with children in it? Do all these children with just one parent grow up fucked up and unloved? No, and if you claim that, your a fucking moron.
Same sex parents love there children the same as a man and woman would, I know this because I knew personally a gay couple who has 4 children, raised from a donor mother who wanted a career but knew her children would be loved, and these kids where some of the happiest kids i've seen growing up, there two dads doing everything to make there lives perfect.
You have no clue about the accusations you are making here, you have no experience of it, and fail to make any other accountability other then a your bias perspective, probably garnered from some piss poor background, how dare you make this assertion without even experiencing examples of your false claims.
I don't know you personally, but for every single parent or gay parents who raised there children in loving homes, I'll speak on their behalf.
(http://media0.giphy.com/media/2IsUUBEO7q704/giphy.gif)
Quote from: aitm on February 02, 2015, 07:32:41 PM
Me thinks your opinion of the origin of marriage may be a bit skewed. Marriage was the idea of men, not just any men mind you, but the lesser of the best. The strongest never had to worry about getting laid, he took what he wanted,,kinda like kings, this trickled down to his followers. But as tribes and society evolved it turned out that by gosh, every man would like to get laid once in awhile without being beat up by the strongest and his band of merry rapists. So, a kind of mutual arrangement was slowly established for the benefit of the whole, allow each man his own fuckhole and hands off to others and men can go about without trying to secretly kill each other. Lo and behold, the idea had some merits to the tribe/society as a whole and everyone saw it was good and then man made god and he agreed. The end….kinda…then religion really went fucktard and also regressed to letting the kings and leaders fuck whoever they wanted with impunity,albeit with the grace of god on their side. The end.
(no sexism was intended, but implied, sue our ancestors)
Sure it was. :biggrin: To extend that, marriage in the larger sense was a legal way of uniting tribes and clans- all the way from the earliest hunter-gather tribes to the kings and emperors of Europe. A great deal of the reasoning behind modern marriage comes from this- the inheritance and the right of the inheritors to thrones and titles. entire wars were fought over who had the right, between brothers and sisters and cousins and illegitimate offspring, ad infinitum. That is why marriage has to be viewed strictly as a legal bond. Amongst the wealthy and royalty entire vast estate inheritance and even rulership of countries depended on who married who and whose offspring were legitimate heirs. Lesser of the best? :eek:
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2015, 08:12:41 PM
I consider that, while your personal opinion, to be an insult, and very small minded of you.
But for some reason you don't consider it an insult or "small minded" when someone from the erm "politically correct" side of the political spectrum does it. Yeah now you know what it feels like to be accused of having some kind of "phobia" or being a "bigot" or "hating" certain people because you don't agree with a certain political position.
In this case, I say fighting fire with fire is fitting since it makes people realize how absurd their political correctness is. It also allows me to go on the offensive.
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2015, 08:12:41 PMyou think the definition of a perfect family comes into one construct, the mother and father ratio? Well what do you say to single parents raising children, where the partner has either died, or left, leaving them with the children?
That is an unfortunate circumstance people sometimes find themselves in, if one spouse dies or is otherwise incapacitated. That doesn't mean motherhood and fatherhood is no longer the ideal. Other times, single parenthood is the result of poor life choices that could have been prevented and people need to called out for it because it's detrimental to their children and by extension to society. And studies have shown a link between single parenthood and youth dysfunctionality as youths raised by single mothers or single fathers are far more likely to:
- drop out
- do drugs
- be exploited sexually by adults
- get in trouble with authorities
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2015, 08:12:41 PMHow many times do you think this happens in any home with children in it? Do all these children with just one parent grow up fucked up and unloved? No, and if you claim that, your a fucking moron.
I said "far more likely" you moron. That does not mean that every child raised by 2 parents will be normal and every child raised by 1 parent will be dysfunctional. Seriously pay attention more. Your entire post is strawman.
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2015, 08:12:41 PMSame sex parents love there children the same as a man and woman would, I know this because I knew personally a gay couple who has 4 children, raised from a donor mother who wanted a career but knew her children would be loved, and these kids where some of the happiest kids i've seen growing up, there two dads doing everything to make there lives perfect.
That is a far too small sample to draw the conclusion that this whole excercise in social engineering is a good thing for society in the long run. Let's see how "happy" these kids will be once they go to high school and get bullied when all the "cool" kids find out who raises them. You've never thought of that either did you? You guys never think about anything, it's just reckless disregard of everything, all bullshit, all made up by "bigots" and "YAY EQUALITY! WE FUTURE! WE PROGRESS!", isn't it with you?
And as for surrogate mothers for gay coupes, let me ask you this. What happens if the gay couple decides to sue the surrogate for child support? Ever thought of that? Remember that any rights, even reproduction, come with responsibilities.
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2015, 08:12:41 PMYou have no clue about the accusations you are making here, you have no experience of it, and fail to make any other accountability other then a your bias perspective, probably garnered from some piss poor background,
Well I dunno what to say dude. Like, you want a society that has low crime and less child or teen exploitation? Then single parenthood is not something to be encouraged. It should only exist in circumstances beyond someone's control and even then it should (and can) be remedied through re-marriage.
QuoteQuality of Parenting
Regardless of family structure, the quality of parenting is one of the best predictors of children's emotional and social well-being. Many single parents, however, find it difficult to function effectively as parents. Compared with continuously married parents, they are less emotionally supportive of their children, have fewer rules, dispense harsher discipline, are more inconsistent in dispensing discipline, provide less supervision, and engage in more conflict with their children.46 Many of these deficits in parenting presumably result from struggling to make ends meet with limited financial resources and trying to raise children without the help of the other biological parent. Many studies link inept parenting by resident single parents with a variety of negative outcomes among children, including poor academic achievement, emotional problems, conduct problems, low self-esteem, and problems forming and maintaining social relationships. Other studies show that depression among custodial mothers, which usually detracts from effective parenting, is related to poor adjustment among offspring.47
http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=37&articleid=107§ionid=692
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2015, 08:12:41 PMhow dare you make this assertion without even experiencing examples of your false claims.
I don't know you personally, but for every single parent or gay parents who raised there children in loving homes, I'll speak on their behalf.
I'm sorry but you're simply full of shit on this one. Maybe if there's room for debate on exactly how gay parenthood affects children (since luckly it's not that common yet), the issue is long
settled on single parenthood. Sorry. You lost that argument decade ago. It's very destructive to raise a child in a single parent household and I've explained why at least two or three times already.
Does that mean it should be illegal? No, it just means people need to stop pretending that they can raise children all by the themselves as good as a couple could. I'm a single guy, I'd never want to be a in a position where I have to raise one alone. And even if circumstances out of my control put me in that position (like spousal death) I would do everything in my power to remarry as soon as possible.
PS: Go fuck yourself. :)
Quote from: stromboli on February 02, 2015, 08:15:54 PM
Sure it was. :biggrin: To extend that, marriage in the larger sense was a legal way of uniting tribes and clans- all the way from the earliest hunter-gather tribes to the kings and emperors of Europe. A great deal of the reasoning behind modern marriage comes from this- the inheritance and the right of the inheritors to thrones and titles. entire wars were fought over who had the right, between brothers and sisters and cousins and illegitimate offspring, ad infinitum. That is why marriage has to be viewed strictly as a legal bond. Amongst the wealthy and royalty entire vast estate inheritance and even rulership of countries depended on who married who and whose offspring were legitimate heirs. Lesser of the best? :eek:
Even so, children are still central to marriage and always have been, especially in circumstances of uniting tribes of clans. It's not union itself so much as the off-spring that unites them. If your union does not produce a child, you'll never be united.
Same with royal marriages of convenience. The union itself means nothing without off-spring. No off-spring = no legacy.
Stating your personal opinion as if it were fact makes you sound like a complete idiot. Even your own argument has many holes.
LOTS of gay people have kids. A lot of them are *gasp* biological! I know, it's hard to imagine. A lot of straight couples have kids that are *gasp* biological. A lot are also not biological.
I think your plan was just to waste the time of the people of this forum. Forum trolling is about the most useless habit I can fathom. If you put 5% of that effort into something productive, you might find yourself a happier person.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-reifowitz/religious-freedom-gives-m_b_6598628.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Quote
Religious Freedom Gives Me the Constitutional Right to Violate Your Constitutional Rights, Right?
Conservatives just love the Constitution -- or at least they say they do. The thing is that they don't seem to have any idea how it works. At least that's a more charitable explanation than saying they don't care how the Constitution works and merely use it as a fig leaf while they undermine the rights it guarantees.
I know posting this is completely futile but...
Your assumption that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents isn't based in research.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/05/nation/la-na-court-gay-parents-20130406
WASHINGTON â€" During last week's Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage, Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that "there's considerable disagreement" among experts over whether "raising a child in a single-sex family is harmful or not." Two other justices agreed that gay parenting was a new and uncertain development.
Those comments startled child development experts as well as advocates of gay marriage, because there is considerable research showing children of gay parents do not have more problems than others.
"This is not a new phenomenon. We have 30 or 40 years of studies, and there has been no hint of a problem," said Dr. Ellen C. Perrin, a professor of pediatrics at the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center.
"There is a fundamental, scholarly consensus that children raised by same-sex couples do just fine," said Stanford sociologist Michael J. Rosenfeld. ...
Even if the research is wrong and two heterosexual parents is the ideal and the purpose of marriage is to create a stable enduring environment for children, marriage should happen after the woman becomes pregnant or when a couple decides to adopt. You say the government should only be involved in marriage because of children so, since the government is going to be involved, let's really do something to help kids. If we are serious about providing children with optimal living conditions then parents should not pay taxes or should receive a stipend so only one parent works and the other stays home with the children. The expecting couple should also be required to take parenting, nutrition and human growth and development classes. I also recommend regular welfare visits from Department of Social Services to provide additional support and resources for the family. Divorce should only be granted under exceptional circumstances and when family therapy interventions have failed. I'm being completely serious here. As a society we can greatly improve child welfare if we make parenting a serious responsibility and if people without children, like myself, accept responsibility for assisting parents buy paying a greater percentage of taxes. I would gladly give up marriage if marriage meant raising children and gladly pay more taxes if it meant better welfare for children-- yes, I'm one of those "progressives" you don't care for.
The problem is marriage currently isn't about raising children. If you ask the majority of people why they marry they will say because they love each other and want to spend their lives together. Old people get married, infertile people marry, people who have no intention of having children marry and no one has concerns. Marriage would need to be redefined to be less inclusive instead of more and there is no indication that society is moving in that direction.
I'm getting married to my same-sex partner of 22 years within the next two weeks. We are not doing it because of love or to be recognized by society, and we certainly are not having a wedding ceremony. We are doing it for money and to protect our assets. My partner is having hip replacement surgery and with his recent heart attack and history of medical problems should he pull a Joan Rivers I stand to lose about $500,000 because the law says I have to be a legal spouse. There is no other legal way around this. We worked hard for this money and if we have to get married to protect ourselves that is what we are going to do.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 03, 2015, 08:38:08 AM
I'm getting married to my same-sex partner of 22 years within the next two weeks. We are not doing it because of love or to be recognized by society, and we certainly are not having a wedding ceremony. We are doing it for money and to protect our assets. My partner is having hip replacement surgery and with his recent heart attack and history of medical problems should he pull a Joan Rivers I stand to lose about $500,000 because the law says I have to be a legal spouse. There is no other legal way around this. We worked hard for this money and if we have to get married to protect ourselves that is what we are going to do.
Aww, congratulations dude *cuddles*, though I understand why your doing it isn't quite the same as the standard marriage reasons and is for legal reasons. I just hope things will be alright.
Congrats, GSO. And I hear you, seriously. My wife has MS and I have been her caregiver for now 15 years. This is exactly what I'm talking about and have referred to. the rights conferred to a married couple should extend to gays just as they do for heteros.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 03, 2015, 08:38:08 AM
I'm getting married to my same-sex partner of 22 years within the next two weeks. We are not doing it because of love or to be recognized by society, and we certainly are not having a wedding ceremony. We are doing it for money and to protect our assets. My partner is having hip replacement surgery and with his recent heart attack and history of medical problems should he pull a Joan Rivers I stand to lose about $500,000 because the law says I have to be a legal spouse. There is no other legal way around this. We worked hard for this money and if we have to get married to protect ourselves that is what we are going to do.
You'll have to elaborate on this one. How exactly are you going to lose 500k $ if your partner dies?
Maybe I'm missing something here since I'm not from America. Are you refering to life insurance? Inheritance? Something else? Common sense tells me you don't implement big solutions to relatively small problems. This sounds like an issue that could be solved with laws that better reflect property rights. Which is ironic given that gay marriage activists are typically on the left and don't respect property rights much.
One thing I'd do is make it so wills cannot be contested by relatives on any other basis other than fraud. That way people can decide fully what happens to their assets once they die.
EDIT:
"We are doing it for money and to protect our assets."
I'd also like to point out that any two non-romantically involved people can make this argument.
So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?
Where does it end if you constantly redefine and expand it?
Quote from: VladK on February 03, 2015, 09:38:07 AM
One thing I'd do is make it so wills cannot be contested by relatives on any other basis other than fraud. That way people can decide fully what happens to their assets once they die.
But relatives do contest wills, and they do it on the basis of fraud. This is true whether fraud exists or not. They do this because they want the money for themselves, rather than the person designated in the will. And sometimes they win. In most states in the US the law says that inheritance automatically goes to the spouse, and I was told once that this is true even if a will specifies otherwise (depending on the laws in your state).
The reason marriage trumps a designated beneficiary in a will is because the state recognizes the partnership and the responsibilities of the partner. The inheritance automatically goes to the spouse, unless a special circumstance is recognized by the court. This is for the same reason the state recognizes that right in the case of divorce. In other words, you don't have a right to a divorce and not share the partnership's assets with your spouse. Society generally sees that as unfair.
If you deny this protection to gay partnerships, you have to justify why this should not apply when partners are of the same gender, and that's where the anti-gay marriage crowd is having problems getting courts to agree with them. There is a fundamental unfairness based on no other apparent reason than a desire to discriminate against a minority group.
Now you may say, well then the laws should be changed, because you don't like the way they are, and we need to treat gay marriage as a special case so that they are not entitled to the same partnership rights as opposite gender marriages. And that's your opinion. But you have to come up with a reason that the court does not view as discriminating against a minority group. You would have to come up with a reason why the rights of partnership should no longer be recognized in opposite sex marriage.
Of course in the legal world, things do tend to get complicated. Exceptions exist, special considerations are acknowledged. It's not an environment where a simplistic wave of the hand can change laws that have been in effect for years, just so one can exercise a personal bias against a minority.
That's why we see the anti gay marriage crowd scrambling to find some new argument that will stun the courts with their perceptive acumen. That's why until now, we haven't heard, "Yeah but marriage is about children and nothing else." Suddenly, love is simply not enough to justify marriage. These attempts at finding new arguments have so far been hollow. They are last ditch attempts to maintain the status quo, and the anti gay marriage crowd isn't thinking them through. Their arguments appear to be generated by a kind of social panic, a panic that seems quite unjustified to most people.
Thanks Munch and Stromboli.
VladK, my partner has been employed for a corporation for over 30 years and has a pension that can only be assigned to a surviving legal spouse, it cannot be willed to anyone. There are also tax considerations: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/estate-tax-will-estate-have-29802.html
The marital deduction. All property left to a surviving spouse passes free of estate tax. (I.R.C. § 2056(a).) This deduction is available to validly married same-sex couples, but it wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor. The marital deduction is not allowed for property left to noncitizen spouses, but the personal estate tax exemption can be used for property left to noncitizen spouses.
Special rules for married couples. A surviving spouse gets a big tax break. If the deceased spouse didn't use up his or her individual tax exemption, the survivor can use what's left. That gives the couple a total exemption of twice the individual exemption amount, which can be split between them in any way that provides the greatest tax benefit. Quote"We are doing it for money and to protect our assets."
I'd also like to point out that any two non-romantically involved people can make this argument.
So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?
Where does it end if you constantly redefine and expand it?
I never proposed expanding marriage, I proposed restricting it. I am using the laws as they are currently written to protect my interests and right now that means getting married.
Seriously, this has gone beyond ridiculous. It starts with a false premise and went downhill form there. If the gay people on the forum showing specific reasons for it and every other point made isn't getting across, this widget is lost to reason. Forget this nonsense.
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 05:58:40 PMI already addressed why it is not comparable to interracial marriage.
And you were wrong about that, too. And it is comparable because you anti-gay marriage people use identical arguments against gay marriage that previous generations used against mixed-race marriage. It's even to the point that you apparently think barring two consenting adults from marriage isn't discriminatory, which is...wow, just wow. Seriously though, that's some dangerously wrong-headed thinking right there. And it's pretty sad that you seem to be doubling down rather than acknowledging your mistake.
QuoteAnd as I said, there is no basis in reason or natural law to limit marriage based on race.
Nor is there a rational basis to limit based on sexual orientation. And natural law, seriously? What is this, the 19th century?
QuoteStraight interracial couples can produce children and they can produce them healthy.
And gay couples can either produce them with a surrogate or adopt them. Or not have any children at all, not unlike tons of straight couples. Whether or not they ultimately have kids isn't a perquisite for marriage, like people here have been telling you over and over again.
So basically this is just another homophobe who can't come up with a concrete reason why a man can't marry another man, or a woman marry another woman. At least, not one that doesn't involve, "Oh God, think of the children!" Somehow I'm not surprised.
VladK, you are making a very blanket assumption on GSO's relationship with his boyfriend, as well as making a very narrow minded view that the only reason to be married to someone is for love and nothing else.
Marriage is a system of state, it is considered a law by state legislation that all legal documentation is given over to your spouse in the event of your death or if your in an accident or insurgence needs or even living arrangements. This is law, fuck religion on any of its primitive values to what it thinks marriage is.
If two people, who are in love but don't give a shit about marriage, want to still get married to get the benefits marriage gives you, then anyone should be entitled to those rights. You think those rights should only be given over to a man and woman only makes you a bigot.
QuoteSo basically this is just another homophobe who can't come up with a concrete reason why a man can't marry another man, or a woman marry another woman. At least, not one that doesn't involve, "Oh God, think of the children!" Somehow I'm not surprised.
pretty much what you said, yes.
Don't like to double post, but I really want Vladk's view of this.
Me and my brother are A.I.D children, as in some 35 years ago my mother went to a GU clinic and was artificially inseminated from a nameless donor. All we know from the clinic, is that the donor was the same man, so both me and my brother are biologically related from both our mother and this nameless donor.
My mum did this because she lost her son she had to her husband, he died at the age of 12 because of cancer his dad had that passed to him, so any hope of mum having children while married to him became zero. She almost killed herself after she lost her child, but got though it and wanted to be a mother again. This is when the clinic told her about artificially insemination.
I'd just like to know your take on this, whats your opinion on mothers having children though artificial means?
Oh, lol a mighty. Simply put, if the courts have decided that gays have a legitimate argument for marriage, any argument made against it is void. Read that 3 times and see if you get it. The reasons for the legal state of marriage have been pointed out by me and others. It doesn't matter what your opinion is.
And reverse that. If a straight couple living together faces the same issues as gays and don't marry, they lose all the rights by law that married couples have. Many couples marry and don't have kids. There is still the other issues of inheritance, property ownership, insurance and so on. Marriage is a one step process that fulfills several legal requirements. How hard is that for you to understand?
It all comes back to one thing, Vlad. In the face of every good argument and the ongoing process of legalizing gay marriage you are against it, it is because you have a bias against it. They call those people bigots.
Quote from: SGOS on February 03, 2015, 10:39:51 AM
Of course in the legal world, things do tend to get complicated. Exceptions exist, special considerations are acknowledged. It's not an environment where a simplistic wave of the hand can change laws that have been in effect for years,
That's a good point, but by the same logic, redefining marriage from male+female to person+person may also have unexpected legal and cultural ramifications upon society. And I can't think of anything more simplistic than "you disagree with this position, therefore you're a bigot and you hate gays and it's all about EQUALITY". It's the exact same bullshit with people who say you're either a feminist or you hate women. Utter nonsense.
I'm also going to be blunt and say that I dislike most gay marriage activists as people and seriously question their motives given the kind of tactics they use to bully others into submission. The kind who thought it was okay to bully someone out of his CEO position at Mozilla because he didn't agree with their view. That's unacceptable, sorry. And I haven't seen anyone stop to think that hey maybe this is going too far. Maybe we shouldn't try to destroy someone's ability to make a living just because they hold a different political opinion.
Quote from: Munch on February 03, 2015, 12:56:22 PM
Don't like to double post, but I really want Vladk's view of this.
Me and my brother are A.I.D children, as in some 35 years ago my mother went to a GU clinic and was artificially inseminated from a nameless donor. All we know from the clinic, is that the donor was the same man, so both me and my brother are biologically related from both our mother and this nameless donor.
My mum did this because she lost her son she had to her husband, he died at the age of 12 because of cancer his dad had that passed to him, so any hope of mum having children while married to him became zero. She almost killed herself after she lost her child, but got though it and wanted to be a mother again. This is when the clinic told her about artificially insemination.
I'd just like to know your take on this, whats your opinion on mothers having children though artificial means?
Since we threw civility out of the window from second 1, I'm gonna be blunt and say that I disapprove of that. Period. It's a gamble. Given your emotional investment, I don't expect to be able to convince you otherwise. I will say though that I am currently single. I don't find it offensive at all if people tell me I should get married before even thinking of having children.
As far as the legality of it, I don't think we can talk about a right of reproduction without the responsibility of reproduction, since rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If you reject one you forfeit the other. As such donors should be liable to be sued for child support just as any other biological parent who wilfully participated in creating a child. It does not matter to me how the impregnation was done as long as the parties consented to it being done.
Quote from: Munch on February 03, 2015, 12:56:22 PM
You think those rights should only be given over to a man and woman only makes you a bigot.
Okay, first of all, I take objection to the way you use the word "right".
Rights are unalienable and are not granted by the government, the government is there to protect rights that you already have, simply as a result of you being you and that goes back to the idea of natural rights, things that you can achieve in a state of nature, such as life, natural reproduction, association with other people, and property (typically acquired through labor, such as building a tiny model ship out of wood or taking an unoccupied plot of land and raising crops on it).
A lot (not all) of aspects of marriage are not based on unalienable rights but are in fact benefits that society grants you, for example more favorable tax arrangements or "tax breaks". Some people call them positive rights in contrast to negative rights. Benefits can vary greatly from country to country. So why shouldn't people get to have a say in this?
You might have a point if marriage was based entirely on negative rights and therefore didn't require any active government support, but it's not. It is a mix of positive and negative rights. It's also a cultural issue since it's a statement about the ideal family structure, which is why it would be better to have civil parternships distinct from marriage EVEN if in practice they would be similar or even identical.
Let me give you an example. A legally married gay couple could claim they have a RIGHT to get surrogate so they can "have" children. But who would pay for that? The taxpayer? Why?
Also why should we create legal loopholes for SOME biological parents to avoid having to take care of their children?
QuoteLet me give you an example. A legally married gay couple could claim they have a RIGHT to get surrogate so they can "have" children. But who would pay for that? The taxpayer? Why?
Also why should we create legal loopholes for SOME biological parents to avoid having to take care of their children?
All you are doing now is manufacturing possibilities to bolster your argument. No government has made any such arrangement for any couple. You are inventing nonexistent circumstances to try to make gay marriage a different proposition than what they have asked for, which is equality.
And indeed, why should we create a legal loophole for ANY biological parents to avoid taking care of their children? Surrogacy has been happening for some time now, in case you haven't noticed. To date, I am unaware of any government involvement.
How many times does this have to be said? Learned men, judges and lawyers, see sufficient merit in the equal right of gay couples to be married and have the same marital rights as straight couples. That is it, QED. The majority of Americans are against gay marriage. Yet the courts deem the rights sufficient to grant them, nonetheless. Dude, you are thicker than a brick if you can't get that point.
Quote from: VladK on February 03, 2015, 05:34:40 PM
It does not matter to me how the impregnation was done as long as the parties consented to it being done.
And there in is your own fallacy to most of what your saying. You don't care as long as there is consent. And yet the idea of two consenting people of the same sex is something your against, or against the idea of a consenting woman giving up her child for adoption, or consenting adult party system for a baby between them all like the example of my old friends.
You can't argue against the consenting actions of adults in their pursuits in life one minute and claim it doesn't matter for another.
Quote from: VladK on February 03, 2015, 09:38:07 AM
So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?
Where does it end if you constantly redefine and expand it?
any opposite sex couple can get married any time, they don't have to prove they are in love.
As for brothers, if you think incest and homosexuality are equivalent, I don't know what else to tell you.
I am surprised that you didn't use a man marrying a goat as an example.
I don't like calling people bigots on here unless they either avoid the obvious evidence to the contrary or invent reasons to support their argument. Mr. Vlad has done both, so he qualifies.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 03, 2015, 07:25:47 PM
any opposite sex couple can get married any time, they don't have to prove they are in love.
Unless they're foreigners LOL. Ever heard of sham marriages to get a green card?
Quote from: Mermaid on February 03, 2015, 07:25:47 PMAs for brothers, if you think incest and homosexuality are equivalent, I don't know what else to tell you.
I never equated incest with homosexuality. The issue is not sex, the issue is redefining marriage. Nice try with that bait and switch but it didn't work.
Again, the issue is not sex, the issue is redefining marriage.
Secondly, I was not referring to incestous brothers. I was referring to brothers who simply live together and feel they're entitled to all those government benefits. I even included BFFs (best friends forever) as an example.
Hell, why not just expand marriage to include entire cities? Where does it end? Is polygamy wrong in your view? Why?
Quote from: Mermaid on February 03, 2015, 07:25:47 PMI am surprised that you didn't use a man marrying a goat as an example.
Goats can't sign papers or agree to anything.
Quote from: Munch on February 03, 2015, 06:55:42 PM
And there in is your own fallacy to most of what your saying. You don't care as long as there is consent. And yet the idea of two consenting people of the same sex is something your against,
I literally don't know how to respond because it doesn't make fucking sense. What do you mean against the "idea of two consenting people of the same sex". Consenting to what exactly? I'm not against gay sex if that's what you mean. Then again I am in fact against certain forms of sex, even if there is consent, for example acts involving adults and children or very young teens. I also don't believe it's possible to consent to being killed and eaten by a cannibal no matter what age we're talking about.
I don't think you understood my point which is that biological parents should be
legally obligated to take care of their children. My rationale for this is that rights involve responsibilities and responsibilities involve rights. The only exception to this would be if you are NOT in fact excercising your right to reproduce, but are being coerced, such as rape or some form of forcible impregnation.
Quote from: Munch on February 03, 2015, 06:55:42 PMor against the idea of a consenting woman giving up her child for adoption,
I'm not against a woman giving up her child for adoption, if she's not a competent parent then maybe that's the only solution left. However since she brought that child into the world, it's only fair that a certain percentage of her income (assuming she has an income) be deducted every month to take care of that child until the 18th birthday.
Quote from: Munch on February 03, 2015, 06:55:42 PMor consenting adult party system for a baby between them all like the example of my old friends.
I consent to leaving a woman pregnant and not paying child support or having anything to do with raising that child, even though I helped bring it in this world. See how dumb that sounds?
Why do you hate personal responsibility for your actions?
Oh do shut up already.
You have implied that you think homosexuals should be allowed "civil partnerships" but not marriage; is this a correct understanding of your position? if so, what rights from marriage should not be included in these "civil partnerships"?
What's the problem with redefining marriage?
Historically, marriage has been defined more in terms of the husband effectively owning the wife. I have no problem with the redefinition away from that. And this change is very recent, historically -- it hasn't yet spread to the entire world. There are still places (Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind in particular) where women are not legally an equal partner. The recognition of women's rights, both on their own and within the context of marriage, is a very recent development in the West.
Biblical marriage was polygamous, and the wife was very definitely the property of the husband; modern marriage is very definitely a "redefinition" of that... and one wonders how many women who currently oppose "redefining" marriage would appreciate being in a really Biblical marriage, being one of multiple wives with few legal rights of their own, obliged to marry their brother-in-law if widowed, etc.
The fact is that as society grows up, we do redefine our definitions of social contracts, of which marriage is one. We always have, and we always will. Marriage has always been part of that, and it isn't immune to change now.
I have an idea: instead of hating gay people, like the OP, how about NOT hating gay people?
(Sometimes my sheer genius staggers me...)
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 03:03:23 AMThe fact is that as society grows up, we do redefine our definitions of social contracts, of which marriage is one. We always have, and we always will. Marriage has always been part of that, and it isn't immune to change now.
Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said (http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf) about mixed race marriages. We've heard this before.
Quote from: LinkFar more fascinating to me, though, are the many, many cases before 1948, which upheld bans on interracial marriage. I have had the unpleasant task of immersing myself in this disturbing jurisprudence. The arguments made in these cases are strikingly similar to arguments made today against same-sex marriage. These arguments include religion and natural law, procreation, concern for the children, deference to the legislature, and the slippery-slope argument (that is, allowing interracial marriage will lead to polygamy and incest). The ultimate rejection of all these arguments in the interracial marriage context may speak to their long-term viability in the same-sex marriage debate.
Funny how Vlad rejects these horrendous arguments when they target mixed-race couples and champions them when they target gay couples. It's almost as if these "rational" arguments are just a cover for an irrational disdain of homosexuals.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 03:28:24 AMI have an idea: instead of hating gay people, like the OP, how about NOT hating gay people?
(Sometimes my sheer genius staggers me...)
Personally, I like to go with the "would an idiot do this?" test. Saying that a loving couple can't get married because they have the wrong genitalia sure seems like the epitome of idiocy.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2015, 03:37:05 AM
Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said (http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf) about mixed race marriages. We've heard this before.
Plus it's a tired canard that Christian fundies love to trot out. Great company he runs with, eh?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2015, 03:37:05 AM
Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said (http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf) about mixed race marriages. We've heard this before.
Pretty much. Granting that I Am Not A Lawyer, I was a poli sci major and have made a particular study of the Constitution, Constitutional law, and the Supreme Court... and quite frankly, I can't think of a way to uphold gay marriage bans without overturning
Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia).
Granted, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are beyond hope on this issue and have demonstrated they will twist any law any way they like (read Scalia's dissents in Romer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans), and in the Windsor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor) and Hollingsworth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry) cases -- and despair that this man is actually on the Supreme Court). Roberts may be reachable, but it would have to be a carefully crafted argument. As before, it's all going to hinge on Kennedy.
Meanwhile, Alabama has just become the first "Deep South" state to get equal marriage (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/alabama-gay-marriage-court-order-114865.html)... while here in Ohio, we're under one of the very few rulings to uphold the ban. I am so fucking embarrassed for my state right now. Having Utah go before us was embarrassing enough, but
Alabama? No wonder our state symbol is a buckeye -- that's just nuts.
QuoteYou have implied that you think homosexuals should be allowed "civil partnerships" but not marriage; is this a correct understanding of your position? if so, what rights from marriage should not be included in these "civil partnerships"?
Well with 200+ countries in the world each with their specific marriage arrangements, I'd have to say without anything that would count as positive right, anything that requires the government to actively "do something" for you, such as financial aid, access to surrogates or allow you more favorable tax arrangements that other people don't get. Given that the LGBT movement is a left-wing movement it's entirely possible that they would try to achieve such goals or take advantage of those that already exist.
Let me give you an example from my own country. Let's say two guys could marry. One's a big shot director, the other one is jobless or has a really low end job. They retire. If the director dies, the jobless/low end one gets half his pension, provided he's also past retirement age, even though he's either never worked a day in his life or worked low end jobs that would never justify such a high pension, paid for by the government from everyone else's taxes. Why exactly is that fair? What exactly does such a union produce for society to justify such an arrangement? I understand the point of tolerance, I don't understand why we need to subsidize it through various means.
If people just want to live together, share the same properties and inherit each other, those would be negative rights in my eyes.
As far as adoption goes, marriages should have absolute priority on adoptions over any other non-traditional arrangement or single people.
Likewise not calling it marriage would mean churches couldn't be forced legally to recognize such unions and make ceremonies. Why should they be forced to recognize it when it's against their beliefs? Nobody's forcing you to go to church if you think their values don't match yours. For example, I'm an atheist, I don't expect to be hired as a priest. That's yet another consequence of "marriage equality" that people haven't quite thought through.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2015, 03:37:05 AM
Exactly. Plus, Vlad's argument that we shouldn't redefine marriage by extending it to gays is pretty much exactly what racists said (http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson1.pdf) about mixed race marriages. We've heard this before.
Funny how Vlad rejects these horrendous arguments when they target mixed-race couples and champions them when they target gay couples. It's almost as if these "rational" arguments are just a cover for an irrational disdain of homosexuals.
I'll say this again and again until you get it.
There's no difference between the races.
There are tremendous differences between the sexes. We even segregate sexes in certain circumstances such as sports teams and bathrooms. Sure we don't segegrate as heavily as more culturally backward countries do, but we do have some of it. There aren't any women or men crying bigotry because they can't get into teams which are defined as strictly composed of male or female. We also don't date people of all sexes, unless we're bi. A lot of things you'd rightfully call racist / racial apartheid, like race-based sports teams and bathrooms or even selectively only dating people of your race (well maybe this is somewhat debatable, I think it's racist but I don't mind if people are discreet about it), simply don't apply when translated to gender or gendered groups.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 03:28:24 AM
I have an idea: instead of hating gay people, like the OP, how about NOT hating gay people?
(Sometimes my sheer genius staggers me...)
Why do you hate children to such an extent that you don't want them to be raised by their real parents?
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 03:03:23 AM
What's the problem with redefining marriage?
Historically, marriage has been defined more in terms of the husband effectively owning the wife. I have no problem with the redefinition away from that. And this change is very recent, historically -- it hasn't yet spread to the entire world. There are still places (Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind in particular) where women are not legally an equal partner. The recognition of women's rights, both on their own and within the context of marriage, is a very recent development in the West.
Biblical marriage was polygamous, and the wife was very definitely the property of the husband; modern marriage is very definitely a "redefinition" of that... and one wonders how many women who currently oppose "redefining" marriage would appreciate being in a really Biblical marriage, being one of multiple wives with few legal rights of their own, obliged to marry their brother-in-law if widowed, etc.
The fact is that as society grows up, we do redefine our definitions of social contracts, of which marriage is one. We always have, and we always will. Marriage has always been part of that, and it isn't immune to change now.
You do realize that even such changes are minor when compared to the kind of change you're proposing? The exact details have changed over time, but continuation of the human species has always been at the center.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 05:37:00 AMWhy do you hate children to such an extent that you don't want them to be raised by their real parents?
Are you really this stupid?
First, by far the majority of gay couples will NOT have children, and in such cases, the "point" your trying to make is totally moot.
Second, children are raised all the time in families that are not bio-mom and bio-dad. There are adopted children... guess you must hate them.. There are foster parents, single parents, relatives raising orphaned children, etc. All out the window in your view.
Third, gay people can and do raise children, and studies show over and over again that children raised by gay couples fare just as well, of not better, than children raised by opposite-sex couples.
Fourth, the existence of gay marriage has no bearing on all those bio-mom, bio-dad and bio-children families that already exist. Those families will not automatically disintegrate when gay couples get hitched.
But if you weren't so blinded by bigotry and hatred, you would realize this stuff.
QuoteVlad: Nobody's forcing you to go to church if you think their values don't match yours. For example, I'm an atheist, I don't expect to be hired as a priest. That's yet another consequence of "marriage equality" that people haven't quite thought through.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/gay-couple-sue-church-of-england_n_3714609.html
OK, so the Church of England is being sued for not performing gay weddings. It has to go to court to be tested, so everyone knows what obligations Churches have. It will be interesting for us to watch. I can't possibly predict the outcome, but I'd be interested in hearing the arguments from both sides. We've had somewhat similar discrimination suits taking place here in the US, and I think it's a good thing that the courts provide clarity on the issue. Don't you? Or does it just upset you that churches are being sued? Would you rather continue on never knowing if the state condones religious discrimination or not.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 06:04:01 AM
Are you really this stupid?
Are you? Prove that I "hate" gay people.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 06:04:01 AMFirst, by far the majority of gay couples will NOT have children, and in such cases, the "point" your trying to make is totally moot.
Oh thanks a lot. You finally admitted that the goal of gay marriage has nothing to do with human reproduction for the most part, which only just goes to show you that activists at best don't understand why we have marriage in the first place or at worst they are trying to subvert the concept of marriage and undermine natural parenthood.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 06:04:01 AMSecond, children are raised all the time in families that are not bio-mom and bio-dad.
And that is not a good thing. The bond between natural mother/father and child once broken can never be fully replicated. Did you know for example that one of Elliot Rodger's greivances was that he could not relate to his step mom Soumaya and could never regard her as a "real mom"? In less extreme cases children of foster parents (even straight foster parents) still have an urge to seek out their real parents, or at least find out what happened to them if they're no longer alive.
Your ideology denies all of this in the name of "equality" and "not offending people".
Now children being raised by non-biological parents, sometimes this is inevitable due to parents dying or otherwise becoming unable to parent effectively (disabilities, jail, mental illness etc.) But as a society we should not deliberately encourage circumstances where children are separated from their biological parents. Surrogacy and sperm donation being examples. These are not accidents or unfortunate circumstances, these are
deliberate actions and people need to be called out for it.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 06:04:01 AMThere are adopted children... guess you must hate them.. There are foster parents, single parents, relatives raising orphaned children, etc. All out the window in your view.
You're an idiot. Read my posts again.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 06:04:01 AMThird, gay people can and do raise children, and studies show over and over again that children raised by gay couples fare just as well, of not better, than children raised by opposite-sex couples.
Don't you mean studies done by gender ideologues using poor or selective sampling, with the promise that they'll end up like Mozilla CEO if they don't reach the "correct" conclusions?
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 06:04:01 AMFourth, the existence of gay marriage has no bearing on all those bio-mom, bio-dad and bio-children families that already exist. Those families will not automatically disintegrate when gay couples get hitched.
No, but they do diminish their importance. In some countries for example parents are no longer reffered to as "mother" or "father", just parent.
It's not equality, it's subversion.
It's a little different in the UK, since the Church of England is the official state church.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 07:06:12 AM
Are you? Prove that I "hate" gay people.
You want to deny them equal rights.
QED.
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 07:07:08 AM
It's a little different in the UK, since the Church of England is the official state church.
Yes, that makes it even more interesting to watch. Who will determine British policy? The state or the church? How can the state endorse a church, but not it's policy? I find these questions interesting and important. Can they be ignored?
Quote from: Atheon on February 04, 2015, 07:08:15 AM
You want to deny them equal rights.
QED.
They have equal rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like me, if they are inclined to do so for whatever reason. Likewise, I'm straight. I can't marry a man either because marriage is defined as man+woman. In this case, individuals aren't actually treated differently, groups are. The properties of a group do not necessarily extend to the individual. That would be a fallacy of division. Airplanes can fly. Individual parts that make up the plane can't.
A women's sports team is defined as a team of X members, all female. Men do not get to join that, there isn't even ONE spot for them. Same with men's sports team. Women can't join. Is that bigotry? No, it's simply a recognition of sexual dimorphism in humans.
QuoteOK, so the Church of England is being sued for not performing gay weddings. It has to go to court to be tested, so everyone knows what obligations Churches have.
No it doesn't. Freedom of religion, at least in so far as it's not excercised to mask a political agenda (Sharia law, Dominionism) or illegal activity (pedophilia coverups, tax evasion), is and should be considered unalienable, since it's a matter of personal conscience. Nobody is forcing you to be a Christian if you don't like their values. In terms of doctrine, there is nothing to test. Their church, their rules. If I make my own club and you don't like the rules, don't join.
A better question would be, why do you insist on being part of a religion (or a club for that matter) whose values you find to be stupid and why should they conform to your views against their conscience? Just don't go there dude.
QuoteIt's a little different in the UK, since the Church of England is the official state church.
Then privatize it. There shouldn't be any state church.
QuoteYes, that makes it even more interesting to watch. Who will determine British policy? The state or the church? How can the state endorse a church, but not it's policy? I find these questions interesting and important. Can they be ignored?
Religious marriage is separate from legal marriage.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 07:45:59 AM
They have equal rights.
Yes, in 36 states, and counting. In the other 14, they do NOT have equal rights, at least when it comes to marriage.
QuoteThey can marry someone of the opposite sex, just like me...
You're using the same faulty logic that the bigoted opponents of interracial marriage used back in the 60s. "Everybody has the same right to marry... people of the same race."
That logic was as flawed back then as it is now.
You lose. You have amply demonstrated your bigotry and intellectual ineptitude. Now go away.
QuoteReligious marriage is separate from legal marriage.
I suppose you could make a case that religious marriage does exist, but I certainly could not define it, and it's a marriage that doesn't seem to amount to anything. All the church really does is perform a ritual. It's not like you get an official document signed by God, and as far as I know, a big hand doesn't come down out of the sky and bless anyone on the head when they get married in a church. I do agree that it's odd that anyone needs a "religious marriage", no matter whether they are gay or straight. But I digress. I still find the legal arguments interesting. And welcome to western Juris prudence, where everything must be tested in a court of law.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 07:06:12 AMAnd that is not a good thing. The bond between natural mother/father and child once broken can never be fully replicated. Did you know for example that one of Elliot Rodger's greivances was that he could not relate to his step mom Soumaya and could never regard her as a "real mom"? In less extreme cases children of foster parents (even straight foster parents) still have an urge to seek out their real parents, or at least find out what happened to them if they're no longer alive.
Your ideology denies all of this in the name of "equality" and "not offending people".
Now children being raised by non-biological parents, sometimes this is inevitable due to parents dying or otherwise becoming unable to parent effectively (disabilities, jail, mental illness etc.) But as a society we should not deliberately encourage circumstances where children are separated from their biological parents. Surrogacy and sperm donation being examples. These are not accidents or unfortunate circumstances, these are deliberate actions and people need to be called out for it.
Care to back this up with some evidence?
I did a quick search, and was unable to find any study that conclusively proves that the relationship with non-biological parents is inherently different from that of biological parents. The one study I did find (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/) did not account for the social stigma artificially placed on same-sex relationships by intolerant sections of society that might lead to different economic circumstances for those families.
I feel like OP would hate me... born to dead-beat parents, adopted, raised by a single widowed mother whom the government payed hundreds of thousands of dollars for her dying husband's cancer treatments, and in favour of gay's having every right to marry... I feel like my life is everything OP is against...
And that makes me slightly happy.
I was raised by a single mother. I'm not an axe murderer and have had a successful professional life, with 3 children all who are professionally successful. My wife was raised in a staunch Mormon household with a mother and father and 4 sisters. She was mentally and physically abused growing up. I am the man who saved her from a hellish situation, which is one reason our marriage bond is so strong. Any number of successful people have been raised by single mothers, single fathers, stepmothers and fathers and so on. There is good parenting and bad parenting. There is no one standard model of what is appropriate or best for children.
Trying to stipulate that there is a "best" model for child raising is silly. I guarantee every argument you have used here, and probably many you haven't thought of, have been used against gay marriage. That it has won in the courts ought to be a clue, but apparently you don't get it.
Atheon, I already addressed that point many times, go read my previous posts cause we're just going in circles now. I have nothing more to say on the subject of interracial marriage compared to ay marriage. If you don't get it now why they're not the same you never will.
QuoteCare to back this up with some evidence?
I did a quick search, and was unable to find any study that conclusively proves that the relationship with non-biological parents is inherently different from that of biological parents. The one study I did find did not account for the social stigma artificially placed on same-sex relationships by intolerant sections of society that might lead to different economic circumstances for those families.
Dude, get a clue about human nature. You don't need a comprehensive study to figure out that people generally speaking have an affinity towards their closest kin that is almost impossible to replicate with strangers.
Most people are never going to have the exact same level of attachment to non-biological children, although some might come close. If they did, adoptions would be far more common than they are. After all, from a purely logical point of view, it's easier than going through 9 months of pregnancy and Africa and some other parts of the world are incredibly overpopulated anyway. Plenty of kids to choose from and you can get them faster than 9 months without going through all that painful trouble. So why don't couples who are fertile adopt more, either nationally or internationally, if having a child with their genes doesn't matter and any child will do?
Non-biological parenthood should be a last resort for children who have lost their real parents or have unfit parents. Not a normative part of society.
QuoteI was raised by a single mother. I'm not an axe murderer and have had a successful professional life, with 3 children all who are professionally successful. My wife was raised in a staunch Mormon household with a mother and father and 4 sisters. She was mentally and physically abused growing up. I am the man who saved her from a hellish situation, which is one reason our marriage bond is so strong. Any number of successful people have been raised by single mothers, single fathers, stepmothers and fathers and so on.
Do you understand the difference between:
- all A are X
- A are more likely to be X
Apparently not.
Plus you are obviously emotionally invested, and that right there should be the end of the discussion. It's almost as pointless as trying to argue in favor of gun rights with the father of someone who got shot and is anti-guns. No matter what you say it's not going to get through.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 05:37:00 AM
You do realize that even such changes are minor when compared to the kind of change you're proposing? The exact details have changed over time, but continuation of the human species has always been at the center.
How is the change from 'women=property' to 'women=/=property' not major? How is the change from polgamy to monogamy not major? Even the societal change to permitting interracial marriages is within living memory -- and IMO a better comparison for the amount of change involved. Hardly anyone takes a blind bit of notice to them anymore. You couldn't say that fifty years ago. You really couldn't say that forty, or even thirty years ago.
Change happens. It's natural.
Also, the 'continuation of the species' argument is meaningless. By that standard, men and women who have been sterilized by medical necessity, accident, genetics or personal choice shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'. Couples who find each other late in life, past the age of a woman safely--or even physically--having children shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'. Couples who simply choose not to have children shouldn't be married because they won't 'continue the species'.
What it seems to come down to, fundamentally, is that you just don't like the idea of it. That's fine, at least just have the honesty to say "It's icky!", and then don't marry someone of your own gender.
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 11:05:48 AM
How is the change from 'women=property' to 'women=/=property' not major? How is the change from polgamy to monogamy not major? Even the societal change to permitting interracial marriages is within living memory -- and IMO a better comparison for the amount of change involved. Hardly anyone takes a blind bit of notice to them anymore. You couldn't say that fifty years ago. You really couldn't say that forty, or even thirty years ago.
Change happens. It's natural.
Also, the 'continuation of the species' argument is meaningless. By that standard, men and women who have been sterilized by medical necessity, accident, genetics or personal choice shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'. Couples who find each other late in life, past the age of a woman safely--or even physically--having children shouldn't get married because they can't 'continue the species'. Couples who simply choose not to have children shouldn't be married because they won't 'continue the species'.
What it seems to come down to, fundamentally, is that you just don't like the idea of it. That's fine, at least just have the honesty to say "It's icky!", and then don't marry someone of your own gender.
I addressed infertile couples too. See previous posts.
And no, marriage has never changed its end-game of providing a stable environment to birth and raise children in. That was true even when wives were completely subordinate to their husbands. It was also true when tribes and kingdoms arranged marriages for unity. This is literally the first time in history a movement is seriously arguing that marriage should be about something else.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 07:06:12 AM
Now children being raised by non-biological parents, sometimes this is inevitable due to parents dying or otherwise becoming unable to parent effectively (disabilities, jail, mental illness etc.) But as a society we should not deliberately encourage circumstances where children are separated from their biological parents. Surrogacy and sperm donation being examples. These are not accidents or unfortunate circumstances, these are deliberate actions and people need to be called out for it.
Try volunteering at your county children services office for a while. That ought to clear your head about when children should and should not be separated from their biological parents, and who does and does not make a suitable parent.
I've seen biological parents get it together and we are delighted to reunite the family. I've also seen biological parents just get worse and worse until permanent placement away from them isn't an option, it's an obligation. A DNA connection does
not inherently make a suitable parent.
Any damn fool can be a mother or father -- and many damn fools are. It takes
effort to be a parent, not a biological connection.
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 11:18:34 AM
It takes effort to be a parent, not a biological connection.
Both are important. You're just trying to muddy the waters here.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:14:51 AM
I addressed infertile couples too. See previous posts.
And no, marriage has never changed its end-game of providing a stable environment to birth and raise children in. That was true even when wives were completely subordinate to their husbands. It was also true when tribes and kingdoms arranged marriages for unity. This is literally the first time in history a movement is seriously arguing that marriage should be about something else.
You can't have it both ways. If marriage is about birthing and raising children, then you are necessarily delegitimizing non-producing marriages. If you are not going to delegitimize non-producing marriages, then you cannot object to same-sex marriages because they don't produce their own children. You need some other basis because this one does not stand; it is inherently self-contradictory.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:21:04 AM
Both are important. You're just trying to muddy the waters here.
No, that was pretty damn crystal clear. You're just dodging the question.
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 11:25:38 AM
No, that was pretty damn crystal clear. You're just dodging the question.
I never said or implied that abusive or otherwise unfit (in jail, seriously disabled etc.) parents should keep their children just because they're biological.
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 11:25:38 AM
No, that was pretty damn crystal clear. You're just dodging the question.
Also tell me something, if DNA doesn't matter, why aren't adoptions more common? They're certainly easier than 9 months of pregnancy and there's an almost unlimited supply abroad in certain parts of the world.
I guess you just don't understand human nature well.
And some people don't understand what Slick maneuvers are that neurotics use in their arguments to win at any cost thinking they are right when wrong! :wall: :doh: :lol: Solitary
Oh Jesus fucking Christ, This dude just doesn't get it. Marriage between gays has won in court and is a fact in 37 states. Any argument you make is null and void for that reason alone. How many times do I have to point out that every conceivable argument against gay marriage has been used in court and failed? It doesn't matter what argument you put on here, you have already lost.
And as to bias, dumbass, your entire argument is biased from the start.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:31:47 AM
Also tell me something, if DNA doesn't matter, why aren't adoptions more common? They're certainly easier than 9 months of pregnancy and there's an almost unlimited supply abroad in certain parts of the world.
I guess you just don't understand human nature well.
Funny how you always descend into
ad hominems when you don't have an answer.
The reason adoptions aren't more common is because they're bloody difficult and bloody expensive -- especially when movement between countries is involved.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:28:43 AM
I never said or implied that abusive or otherwise unfit (in jail, seriously disabled etc.) parents should keep their children just because they're biological.
Functionally, that is exactly what you have implied. You've staked out a position that the biological family is the be-all and end-all of marriage law, which is
exactly what you stated here:
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:14:51 AM
And no, marriage has never changed its end-game of providing a stable environment to birth and raise children in. That was true even when wives were completely subordinate to their husbands. It was also true when tribes and kingdoms arranged marriages for unity. This is literally the first time in history a movement is seriously arguing that marriage should be about something else.
And, by the bye, it's not the first time marriage changed in a major way... "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" (http://theweek.com/articles/475141/marriage-changed-over-centuries)
You keep throwing out these words like "never", "first time" and never provide a link to back up your statement.
I'm serious. Just admit you're against gay marriage because it squicks you. I could at least respect that for the sake of honesty.
I might add -- no one's asking for same-sex marriage to be
mandatory. Just
available. You're talking like it's the end of Western civilization, when it's a simple case of two citizens in good standing who happen to be of the same sex saying they should have the same rights, privileges, benefits and responsibilities of two citizens in good standing who happen to be of the opposite sex.
Lemme put these out here:
What is the
compelling state interest in denying to two citizens of adult age and in full mental capacity the same contract rights afforded to another two citizens, simply on the basis of their genders?
What is the Constitutional basis, especially in light of the
Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) and
Romer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans) decisions, to uphold a state ban on same-sex marriages?
And lastly, what the hell difference does it make to you whom I marry? And I mean real, physical, measurable difference, not some philosophical twaddle. You don't know if I'm your next door neighbor or half a continent away. So, what's the
real,
physical,
measurable difference it makes to you?
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:04:30 AMDude, get a clue about human nature. You don't need a comprehensive study to figure out that people generally speaking have an affinity towards their closest kin that is almost impossible to replicate with strangers.
So in other words, you're blowing smoke out your ass and claiming it as fact.
Seems so. One moment he's claiming the marriage has to be between a man and woman because multiple easily broken arguments he's made, yet now is saying there cannot possibly be kinship between someone unless related, meaning marriage itself is meaningless on the grounds of even men and women not related cannot find that kinship, according to him.
I really don't feel like adding much else, but it's funny, it's like watching a g-man video in the blind sense of arrogance going on here.
This is the intellectual equivalent of smacking a sack full of shit with a 2X4.
QuoteYou keep throwing out these words like "never", "first time" and never provide a link to back up your statement.
Really? Tell me a period in history where the end-game of marriage was not procreation and raising children then?
I mean sure it's entirely possible that some people throughout history married purely to have a fuck buddy or a house servant. But it was never something cultural or large-scale. Plus contraception and abortion weren't easy to do, if at all.
Quote from: Munch on February 04, 2015, 02:58:10 PM
yet now is saying there cannot possibly be kinship between someone unless related
More muddying tactics, I wasn't talking about romance in that post, I was talking about the affinity (non-sexual by the way, you pervert) that people feel towards their closest relatives. The closer the stronger.
You say none of this matters, and reproduction doesn't lead to any special bond between the parent and the child that results from that reproduction, and that you can have it just as easily with strangers, but I wonder, if you had two children, one biological, one adopted (and to make it even less ambiguous let's say it was adopted at 17, just 1 year short of legal adulthood) and one day they were both drowning and you could only save one. What are the odds that you would instinctively go for the biological one first? Pretty damn high I would say.
QuoteAnd lastly, what the hell difference does it make to you whom I marry? And I mean real, physical, measurable difference, not some philosophical twaddle. You don't know if I'm your next door neighbor or half a continent away. So, what's the real, physical, measurable difference it makes to you?
I've just told you in previous posts. Marriage has certain benefits that the government (i.e. the people) have to provide. So it is not simply a matter of "being left alone". To make such an argument that it's simply about freedom, marriage would have to be based PURELY on negative rights.
Since that is not the case, you should be the one convincing me that it is a good idea for the government to subsidize the relationships of two men or two women. Or to put it more crudely, why should two people get tax breaks and a host of other benefits just because they fuck? Are they actually producing something for society that I'm not aware of? Should people also be able to legalize their friendships or is that just a step too far?
Also how do you square your support of gay marriage with the fact that now churches in UK and Denmark are being sued for "discrimination" if they won't perform a wedding ceremony, against their religious freedom?
I'd be curious to know if you believe gender segregation in prisons, bathrooms or sports teams is bigotry on par with South African apartheid or Jim Crow or merely being realistic about human sexual dimorphism.
Oooh I get it now. You don't want your tax dollars going to support gay marriage.
It doesn't matter how long a paragraphs and attempts to justify your position like a greasy politician, you are outright saying you think the same rights given to one group of people should not be given to another, because YOU think its wrong.
You honestly lack the foresight to try walking in another mans shoes.
(Stromboli searches for meme of man beating sack of shit with a 2X4...........)
Quote from: stromboli on February 04, 2015, 07:01:30 PM
(Stromboli searches for meme of man beating sack of shit with a 2X4...........)
I know, its the dead horse thing. Theres not even a debate here, its just someones bad perspective based on cognitive dissonance.
Bold mine
Quote from: VladK on February 02, 2015, 07:40:43 AM
It may also pave the way for unlimited polygamy and given the aggressive nature of political correctors on the left "polygamophobia" will likely be their next social crusade against the "evil intolerant" west.
Quote from: VladK on February 03, 2015, 09:38:07 AM
So what's next? Marriage extended to BFFs? Brothers living together? Polygamous groups? Communes?
Quote from: trdsf on February 04, 2015, 11:05:48 AM
How is the change from 'women=property' to 'women=/=property' not major? How is the change from polgamy to monogamy not major?
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 11:14:51 AM
And no, marriage has never changed its end-game of providing a stable environment to birth and raise children in. That was true even when wives were completely subordinate to their husbands. It was also true when tribes and kingdoms arranged marriages for unity. This is literally the first time in history a movement is seriously arguing that marriage should be about something else.
So which is it, is polygamy the big boogie man and the next attempt to redefine marriage or has the meaning of marriage never changed because polygamy is still about birthing and raising children?
Hey, I gave him one post, you guys gave him seven pages……nuff said.
Quote from: aitm on February 04, 2015, 07:34:26 PM
Hey, I gave him one post, you guys gave him seven pages……nuff said.
Your generosity is profound. Or something.
Quote from: Poison Tree on February 04, 2015, 07:29:29 PM
Bold mine
So which is it, is polygamy the big boogie man and the next attempt to redefine marriage or has the meaning of marriage never changed because polygamy is still about birthing and raising children?
Polygamy, as it has been practiced so far, does not contradict the goal of birthing and raising children.
Although there are other aspects of it that make it detrimental to society and ultimately should be rejected. For one thing, where do you set the limit? Any arbitrary X you can think of, it just begs the question, why not X+1? If it's possible for entire communities or even towns, hypothetically speaking, to marry each other for benefits, then the whole thing becomes one big joke far divorced from its original purposes.
I also question how dedicated you can truly be to multiple spouses, given most people's tendencies towards romantic exclusivity and jealousy, especially the tendency of men to compete for the affection of women, sometimes violently, though this has been true for some women as well. How long would they really tolerate each other before one of them tried to prove he was a the "real man of the house" or the "one true love" or some shit like that and therefore should be the only one? (And if you're wondering why that doesn't happen in the Islamic world, well those women are conditioned to be submissive anyway and take it, through both divine and earthly retribution.) Also would this allow women to marry multiple partners or just men? You can't exclude women from it if men get to do it. Even so in practice it would still lead to a shortage of eligible women.
Quote from: Munch on February 04, 2015, 06:57:46 PM
Oooh I get it now. You don't want your tax dollars going to support gay marriage.
Well technically that would be my tax RON in this case. You don't think people should be allowed to have a say in what happens to their tax money?
So much for freedom. You really need to look into the topic of positive vs. negative rights.
QuoteIt doesn't matter how long a paragraphs and attempts to justify your position like a greasy politician, you are outright saying you think the same rights given to one group of people should not be given to another, because YOU think its wrong.
Actually if you think about it different groups are treated differently. Corporations are not NGOs are not marriages. All three are basically groups of people and they function differently legally.
By the way is it wrong to define official sports teams based on gender? Or just recognition of sexual dimorphism?
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Legal benefits of marriage:
QuoteTax Benefits
Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.
Government Benefits
Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
Applying for joint foster care rights.
Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
These are the benefits given though marriage. One marriage license, one ceremony, all of these benefits are available to a married couple.
A gay couple living in a civil union outside of marriage does not have these benefit without pursuing them through legal channels individually. Heretofore, a heterosexual couple could though civil union after 7 years be considered as married with the same rights. However:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union
Unions between men, between women or including transgender people in any way, independently of the sexual orientation of the partners, have been and still are considered taboo for much of the past and present societies,[1] particularly those of strongly religious taboo-derived social mores such as the Western world and societies influenced by it, but at the same time they are becoming increasingly less of a reason for moral panic even in societies with the aforementioned social role-influencing religions being still a pervasive influence, and also more and more regarded as legitimate relationships worthy of the same protections given to mixed-sex unions enjoyed by law and society.More and more regarded, but not yet statute by law. Civil unions for gay couples at present do not offer the same protection as marriage.
It follows therefore that marriage is the simple and best solution. From the start, beginning with Prop. 8 and onward, there has never been an argument that successfully has stopped the toppling of heterosexual married laws
except in those states where the prevailing attitudes are strongly religious and the legislators strongly conservative and these laws have not yet been presented to the Supreme CourtProp 8 failed and the efforts in 37 states have failed to stop it. Simply put, EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT in these jurisdictions did not meet the test of constitutionality required to overturn the civil marriage of gays.
Note the list above. There is no mention of specific conditions having to do with child rearing or set conditions which define what a "quality" environment for what child raising is. The state of marriage is
ABOUT SPECIFIC LEGAL CONDITIONS AWARDED TO MARRIED COUPLES THAT ARE NOT AWARDED TO COHABITATING COUPLES. That is it. you have presented several specious arguments, none backed by any specific study or anything other than your opinion about child rearing. You can argue all day that there is a specific set of circumstances wherein children are best reared; the very fact that children can and have been successfully reared outside that set of circumstances proves you wrong. The issue of gay marriage is about legal rights awarded to a married couple, period. All other arguments are merely smoke and mirrors. Again, one more time,
NO OPPOSING DEFENSE IN 37 STATES HAS BEEN ABLE TO OVERTURN THE RIGHT OF GAY MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL TESTS APPLIED TO IT. IT IS ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, PERIOD.
VladK, while you are not technically breaking any rules (to what I've seen)... you are voicing an unnecessarily bigoted opinion that is not based on anything factual. There may or may not be any personal attacks or name calling towards any members on here (again... to what I have seen), but your very unpopular and hate-filled position on gay marriage is pissing everyone off. I would suggest that you voluntarily not post in this thread if you are going to hold steady with what you have to say about gay marriage, being gay, single parents, etc... Otherwise I will ban you. There is no need to keep someone as a member if the only things he/she posts unnecessarily upsets the rest of the site.
A fair heads up, you think?
Dude, it's your forum, if you wanted to create an echo chamber of leftists similar to Atheism Plus you could have said so from the beginning. But I guess the whole "community website for freethinkers" has some very narrow parameters in which you can think freely which just defeats the whole purpose.
Also your members are not exactly being factual or honest as evidenced by the constant strawman even after repeated clarifications, ad hominems, disingenuous equivalence between race and gender, muddying the waters tactics, evading questions, ignoring some very serious side effects of redefining marriage such as loss of religious freedom, and downright promoting dictatorial practices by implying that people have no right to object to how part of their tax money is used.
You say that I have NOTHING, NOTHING at all factual with which to back up my claims, so I guess the articles about UK and Denmark are bullshit and churches aren't actually being sued, tax benefits, housing benefits etc. for gay couples are not in fact positive rights, the statistics showing that single parent households are more likely to produce troubled youths than two parent households are bullshit too and no doubt you're probably downplaying the role lack of responsible fatherhood played in Elliot Rodger's failure to adapt to society, particulary dating women. We all know how that ended, but according to the gay activists fathers and mothers are irrelevant now to such an extent that some countries like France won't even use "father" and "mother" anymore in official documents.
Anyway, that's my final word, feel free to cancel my account, I don't care.
An echo chamber of leftists? OK. Atheism plus? So his shit didn't fly over there either. Might be a clue; the one he didn't get there or here.
Quote from: stromboli on February 04, 2015, 09:45:31 PM
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
Note the list above. There is no mention of specific conditions having to do with child rearing or set conditions which define what a "quality" environment for what child raising is. The state of marriage is ABOUT SPECIFIC LEGAL CONDITIONS AWARDED TO MARRIED COUPLES THAT ARE NOT AWARDED TO COHABITATING COUPLES.
Ouch!
Quote from: stromboli on February 05, 2015, 07:11:02 AM
An echo chamber of leftists? OK. Atheism plus? So his shit didn't fly over there either. Might be a clue; the one he didn't get there or here.
Life lesson #1: Acting like a dick generally leads to being shown the door.
A person who comes on an atheist website with an argument to condemn the actions of a specific group of people is by definition a bigot. That the arguments are cherry picked and mostly projections of his own ideas merely cements that. He will no doubt in turn condemn us for not buying into his skewed world view. I be all sad and unhappy, boo hoo.
Now where have I seen this type of mentality before.. OH yes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j8jQkSydeo
"I'm right and everyone else is wrong, I'm going to talk over you because I know I'm so completely right, nothing you say could touch on how right I am"
Christians and extreme right wingers are some of the most insecure people there are, they hold their fragile beliefs, which is easily broken, and go into a state of denial if it gets chipped, even aggressively so, even to accusing everyone else of being at fault. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that way of thinking the early signs of a sociopath?
I actually forgot that the second post he made in this thread, he basically called Mermaid a child hater because she's a single mom.
QuoteAnd I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?
That could be called a personal attack...
His behavior was very similar to that of a fundie. First, he claimed to be a former supporter of gay rights, kind of like fundies often claim they were former atheists. I am higlhy skeptical of such clsims, because anti-gay to pro-gay, like relugious to atheist, is what I call an issue of one-way epiphany: it takes a major lapse of rational thinking to go in the "wrong" direction. He also had his arguments solidly debunked again and again, but simply handwaved them away. He also used tired old oft-debunked arguments of the order of "why are there still monkeys" to back up his thesis. Plus when he left, he called us "leftists"..
I guess if that means "people who value reason, freedom and equal rights, and who don't suffer fools or bigots", then I'd agree wholeheartedly.
Quote from: stromboli on February 05, 2015, 10:21:36 AM
Was I too harsh?
Not at all Stromboli, you explained urself well, as did all the others in this thread, i think i can safely say that he wont be missed by any of us.
Bye Vladk, dont let the door hit you on the Arse on the way out.................... :shifty:
Quote from: VladK on February 05, 2015, 05:59:58 AMif you wanted to create an echo chamber
You must be new here. We rarely agree on anything.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 05, 2015, 01:32:49 PM
You must be new here. We rarely agree on anything.
I say, I'm not sure I agree with you on that one.
Oh, wait...
Apparently he doesn't know how to read in addition to him not knowing how to be civil...
I only gave a warning. I was only going to ban him if he continued posted the same bigoted stuff that was in the forum. It seems like he thinks that I'm going to ban him no matter what, which is not the case. If he's done with his hate-rant in this thread (like it seems) he can stay for now
Sent from your mom.
I take personal responsibility for what has happened here and I'm ashamed.
Quote from: stromboli on February 05, 2015, 06:41:49 PM
I take personal responsibility for what has happened here and I'm ashamed.
I dunno why dude. In cases like this, when someone comes right out with something like his original post, I think its in most people to try and see if theres maybe a middle ground we can reach with them, kind of like how Deidre32 talked about thinking of being a muslim, though while with her she was civil, gave rational reasons for it, and didn't insult or downgrade anyone, making it a thing most concluded as her choice, with this guy, he just came right out saying he thinks gays should be given second class treatment, didn't listen to debate instead just wanted to hammer in 'I'M RIGHT YOUR ALL WRONG' and didn't meet any middle ground. At best all you can do with someone like that is tell them to fuck off then and go be bigoted by themselves.
I'm kidding. Seriously.
oops.
I think I'm a bit to wired on caffeine atm. Blame Nescafe.
Quote from: stromboli on February 05, 2015, 06:41:49 PM
I take personal responsibility for what has happened here and I'm ashamed.
Lol I was wondering why and then I scrolled down....
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 06:30:24 PM
Really? Tell me a period in history where the end-game of marriage was not procreation and raising children then?
I see you failed to follow the link I provided, in the quote from the historian. Not surprised.
Quote from: VladK on February 04, 2015, 06:30:24 PM
I've just told you in previous posts. Marriage has certain benefits that the government (i.e. the people) have to provide. So it is not simply a matter of "being left alone". To make such an argument that it's simply about freedom, marriage would have to be based PURELY on negative rights.
Since that is not the case, you should be the one convincing me that it is a good idea for the government to subsidize the relationships of two men or two women. Or to put it more crudely, why should two people get tax breaks and a host of other benefits just because they fuck? Are they actually producing something for society that I'm not aware of? Should people also be able to legalize their friendships or is that just a step too far?
Also how do you square your support of gay marriage with the fact that now churches in UK and Denmark are being sued for "discrimination" if they won't perform a wedding ceremony, against their religious freedom?
I'd be curious to know if you believe gender segregation in prisons, bathrooms or sports teams is bigotry on par with South African apartheid or Jim Crow or merely being realistic about human sexual dimorphism.
No, you haven't made it clear in any post that I've seen what difference it makes to you. So, another dodge. I'm getting used to that from you.
Actually, your whole reply is a dodge. You haven't answered any of the questions I've set you. As soon as you do, then I will answer yours. I'll repeat all three of them here, since you flatly ignored two of them and only quoted the third in a failed attempt to weasel out of answering any of them:
What is the
compelling state interest in denying to two citizens of adult age and in full mental capacity the same contract rights afforded to another two citizens, simply on the basis of their genders?
What is the Constitutional basis, especially in light of the
Loving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) and
Romer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans) decisions, to uphold a state ban on same-sex marriages? (Note:
Loving and
Romer are both hotlinked to websites explaining what they are -- obviously you need to have links pointed out to you, since you've demonstrated you're not good at seeing them.)
And lastly, what the hell difference does it make to you whom I marry? And I mean real, physical, measurable difference, not some philosophical twaddle. You don't know if I'm your next door neighbor or half a continent away. So, what's the
real, physical, measurable difference it makes to you?
You don't get an answer until you provide one. No more of your smokescreen/diversionary bullshit. Man up and take responsibility for your position. If all you can do is flail and whine and point at other things, you're not worth further commentary.
Been here awhile. noticed a lot of similarities between these people. We had Casparov and that wack job claiming 9/11 or whatever was an inside job, super conspiracy theorist. We all address these posts in different ways, whether it be by taking their argument apart or by trying to show with the big picture how their argument doesn't work. But they all seem to do the same thing; address some of the posts, ignore others, and carry on blithely as though all of the concrete counter arguments don't matter.
It also never fails that there whole argument is a combination of opinion, always highly biased, and making unreal projections about where the issue will lead. But bias is built in, always. And the entire endeavor is to slant every so-called piece of evidence to fit, with no intention of being objective whatsoever, despite what they maintain. It is never a discussion. It is always a full on insistence they are right, no matter how much or accurate the contradicting evidence might be.
I quite enjoy these threads where the OP argues the entire community. In this guys case, I believe he was going for martyrdom from the very begining. We are a bunch of leftist so trying to destroy Western civilization because we hate it. In reality, that is why Western civilization is superior. We are constantly adapting our beliefs and behaviors based greater knowledge. As stated before, interracial marriage was banned until attitudes were changed and we adapted our laws to accomidate them.
Gay marriage will soon be legal and life will carry on. The case before SCOTUS is two women that want to adopt their children. Four special needs children that would otherwise be drowning in the foster care system. Paid for by the taxpayer for the rest of their lives. There might be a handful of children that resent having same sex parents but actual studies have shown that most don't. It might be better to look at the positive results than to search for hypothetical negatives.
In the mean time, enjoy your martyrdom though and wear it as a badge of honor. We're all really fucking impressed.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 05, 2015, 01:32:49 PM
You must be new here. We rarely agree on anything.
Hey fuck you! We agree on everything! EVERYTHING!
Edit: I've been aware of this thread. I just stayed away from it because I didn't want to catch the hetero from any of you.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on February 06, 2015, 07:53:04 AM
Hey fuck you! We agree on everything! EVERYTHING!
Edit: I've been aware of this thread. I just stayed away from it because I didn't want to catch the hetero from any of you.
Right. You can buy it at Walmart in the perfume aisle.
I miss threads like this... some troll (ether by sincerity or ignorance) makes a statement like "SQUARES ARE ROUND" and there are 10 pages of people trying every tactic in the book to understand the OP's point, argue against it and/or debate a nakedly false assertion.
* Moloth seal of approval *