I welcome our new fabulously dressed overlords.
[gunn]"Make it work."[/gunn]
|
I am actually for removing government from the marriage game all together. Let churches handle religion and let government jhandle the rest. I am for granting the perks to anyone who enters a domestic partnership, civil union, or what ever you want to call it. That way people who are in long tern commited relationships, but don't choose to get married for what ever reason, can have the same perks and privaleges as "married" couples.All I am saying is that aren't we still discriminationg against people by only holding those perks for married people, we are just expanding the pool of people who get prefered treatment?So you are for stripping those "perks" and "preferential treatment" from all currently married couples?
This is my stance as well. Unfortunately the battlefield that was chosen falls outside my ultimate desires. Since that is the case I support what we can achieve now and perhaps change minds about the ultimate issue later. So I absolutely agree that the government has no place in the actual "marriage" and should only be issuing civil unions.
On the topic of polygamy, I actually support the allowance of group unions. So long as everyone in a union is an adult and can express intelligible consent to the union, it should be legal. Naturally that guideline eliminates unions with animals or with those who do not have the mental capacity to consent.
Cohabitation is an interesting situation. I would likely say they should be able to form a union even if it is not a romantic one. Of course, those groups could also incorporate and gain some of the rights they are looking to gain through a civil union.
I welcome our new fabulously dressed overlords.
At the risk of further empowering stereotypes, I just couldn't help myself...
Aura strong conjuration; CL 11th
Slot shoulders; Price 38,000 gp; Weight 10 pounds (mostly bling)
This rhinestone-studded garment confers many properties. Firstly, it grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Charisma of +4 (but only to creatures of the same gender as the wearer); this bonus becomes +10 if the viewer is intoxicated.
Secondly, once per day the wearer may attempt to smite butch with one normal melee attack. Similar to the paladin’s smite evil ability, he adds his Charisma bonus (if any, including that conferred by the cloak) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per character level. If the wearer accidentally smites a creature that is not butch, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.
And lastly, using the using the command phrase (“oh, honey, please”) in any room instantly transforms it into a tastefully decorated, color-coordinated ensemble complete with artfully placed trays of h’orderves and libations, removing any unsightly soil, grime, and refuse. This action also wardrobes any allies in the room in matching outfits (Will save DC17 to resist). This power is usable one per day – unless the décor is truly heinous, in which case the attendant deities of fashion may (40% chance) allow an additional use.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, prestidigitation, eagle’s splendor, mage's magnificent mansion, creator must be fabulous; Cost 19,000 gp
|
|
I hate to agree with David, but he does have a point here. Why should it be any different if me and my girlfriend want to get married or if you and your wife want to add a third member to your marriage. Or if Christina and I found someone that we wanted to add as a spouse? How do we actually decide who is intitled to the "rights" of marriage and who isn't.
Are y'all taking applications?
;)
|
|
Take it a step further: an atheist man can now get married to an atheist woman by a justice of the peace, and they both get full benefits. Yet the same people who view homosexuality as being morally wrong also typically view atheism as being morally wrong. So I kind of feel like, if gays can be denied civil union rights as well as marriage (a la Texas), and that withstands Constitutional scrutiny, then it's only a matter of time before a bill gets passed that says only Christian men and women can get married.
When I married my wife, no gay people told me I was morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married. I figure if they're willing to respect my rights, I ought to return the favor.
You've never been called a "breeder"? I have :)
I'm not sure, but I think its the earliest age at which one can be considered a retiree.
Why 62 years of age? Where did that figure come from?The whole age thing is because one of the reasons the domestic partnership thing passed (or rather, was upheld) in Washington is that, at the moment, if two old folks on Social Security get married, their combined SS is way less than their individual payouts... in addition to granting gay folks most of (though unfortunately not all) the rights of married folks, the bill allows elderly folks to have nearly all the rights of being married without taking the financial hit.
Funny that it takes a financial incentive for the older (and frequently more conservative set) to throw their weight behind gay rights. Reminds me of Prop 8 The Musical (With Jack Black and Neil Patrick Harris!).
Ah, that makes sense. Sneaky buggers. I just wish they'd go the extra step and just recognize common-law marriage. I know many couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, whose relationships have outlasted many marriages. My partner's mother still asks, thirteen years later, "When are you guys going to get married?" I figure, why ruin a perfectly good relationship with it?
Take it a step further: an atheist man can now get married to an atheist woman by a justice of the peace, and they both get full benefits. Yet the same people who view homosexuality as being morally wrong also typically view atheism as being morally wrong. So I kind of feel like, if gays can be denied civil union rights as well as marriage (a la Texas), and that withstands Constitutional scrutiny, then it's only a matter of time before a bill gets passed that says only Christian men and women can get married.
When I married my wife, no gay people told me I was morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married. I figure if they're willing to respect my rights, I ought to return the favor.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Take it a step further: an atheist man can now get married to an atheist woman by a justice of the peace, and they both get full benefits. Yet the same people who view homosexuality as being morally wrong also typically view atheism as being morally wrong. So I kind of feel like, if gays can be denied civil union rights as well as marriage (a la Texas), and that withstands Constitutional scrutiny, then it's only a matter of time before a bill gets passed that says only Christian men and women can get married.
When I married my wife, no gay people told me I was morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married. I figure if they're willing to respect my rights, I ought to return the favor.
Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
The privileges we take as "basic rights" in America change over time. Fifty years ago, people had a right to smoke cigarettes just about anywhere, and inter-racial couples were fighting to establish a "right" to marry in the face of miscegenation laws.(Congrats on your marriage BTW)
I've never seen a reputable study that indicates same-sex marriage (or being around same-sex marriage) will give the couple or their kids cancer. Or a reputable study that indicates heterosexual couples are somehow better parents than same-sex couples.
I see your point, but you are probably employing circular reasoning. I think that you are starting with the assumption that same-sex parents are as good (whatever that means) as heterosexual parents. Would you regard as reputable studies which don't seem to support that assumption?
If gay marriage, why not polyamory?
To be honest with you in a perfect world I wouldn't mind polyamory being legal. Theoretically, it's a non-issue to me. In practice it has two big problems with it, which I was going to give catchy names but that would probably precipitate an uninteresting slap fight so instead I'll keep them to myself and use humorless numbers.
1) In the real world polyamory usually ends up meaning polygamy and usually that amounts to very serious social problems. (Polyandry is comparatively rare...which should tell you something right there given the nigh-universal gender roles involved.) Specifically, it usually looks a lot more like a sexual exploitation cartel where elder men are able to force young women into marriage at a rather young age. Young men are competitors for women and thus the elder men are inclined to throw them out of the community, often literally, like so much human detritus. Society ends up coming in to pick up the pieces. It's not pretty for anybody. Or at least that's how it works for the Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints, who have raised dodging child welfare agencies to an artform. (Seriously. Google them.) We can say that these are problems with people and that reasonable people might be able to handle polyamory, and that's true.
But the world isn't filled with reasonable people. We can talk about theoretical fourteen year-olds who might be able to handle sex with an adult too, but to ignore the reality that when tried these things have generally not worked out well for the child is simply irresponsible. Maybe some teenagers are that grown up and some adults aren't going to sexually exploit them, but given our social obligation to safeguard the youth we cannot assume the rosiest of scenarios always prevails.
(And if anybody thinks I just made an argument for child molestation, read the paragraph again. I didn't.)
2) Any law permitting marriage to N partners (even if N is 20 or 30) could be challenged on the grounds that if N is ok, then N+1 should be ok too. That's a fair argument. But then society has to figure out how to handle all these spouses, ensure that they and any children are treated equally (Which is rarely the case in real world polyamory.) spouses are not exploited, and so forth. Good luck with that, considering the real world record. It's only going to get harder with no numerical ceiling at all.
By contrast, simple two-person unions are easy. (Well maybe they're not easy to live in sometimes, but legally speaking.) Even in polyamorous societies they're very common, which is saying something. It's obvious from the places where same-sex marriage has been legalized that the world has not ended. It avoids all the logistical and moral concerns, since we're simply using an in situ arrangement. The only way it becomes complicated is when segregated unions are set up to avoid offending someone, as if that ever worked. Then suddenly there's a huge maze of this-but-not-that instead of the simplest of all solutions: make it the same for everybody. And even then you're asking for a fight every time you try to present your domestic partnership credentials and the hospital or business decides to be difficult, whereas a marriage slots exactly into extant policies.
Of course it's easy to say that one favors civil unions for all. On paper, that looks good too. Everybody gets the same, right? Yeah, if one pretends that the anti campaign would do anything but declare that the evil gubbermint and libberevils are out to divorce everyone. These are the same people who argue that we want to recruit (read: rape) schoolchildren.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
True, but for some reason the opponents of gay marriage I've spoken to always want to use Exodus. Right wing Christians seem rather fond of the Old Testament God-- Sodom & Gomorrah, killing of the firstborn, all the heavy-handed stuff.
I suppose if they quoted Paul I'd have to flip over to Corinthians and point out that Paul also said women should keep silent at church...
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
True, but for some reason the opponents of gay marriage I've spoken to always want to use Exodus. Right wing Christians seem rather fond of the Old Testament God-- Sodom & Gomorrah, killing of the firstborn, all the heavy-handed stuff.
I suppose if they quoted Paul I'd have to flip over to Corinthians and point out that Paul also said women should keep silent at church...
All Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow and ignore the rest, if they followed all the religious laws in the bible all Christians would look, dress and act like Hasidic Jews.
|
Not trying to start a flame war... nor am I trying to upset anyone.
I just want to know. Why is it when someone disagrees with a subject, in this case "gay marriage," that supporters automatically go on the offensive and say that you are a and I quote from earlier in the thread "f*cking homophobe?" Just because you disagree, for what ever reason be it political, religous or economical for that reason, does not mean you fear something. It means you disagree. Such things should be open for debate. Not ridicule. Just my 2 copper.
I see your point, but you are probably employing circular reasoning. I think that you are starting with the assumption that same-sex parents are as good (whatever that means) as heterosexual parents. Would you regard as reputable studies which don't seem to support that assumption?The privileges we take as "basic rights" in America change over time. Fifty years ago, people had a right to smoke cigarettes just about anywhere, and inter-racial couples were fighting to establish a "right" to marry in the face of miscegenation laws.(Congrats on your marriage BTW)
I've never seen a reputable study that indicates same-sex marriage (or being around same-sex marriage) will give the couple or their kids cancer. Or a reputable study that indicates heterosexual couples are somehow better parents than same-sex couples.
Considering how badly some heterosexual couples f!~# up child rearing, I would be very surprised to find any studies that says same sex couples in general rear them even worse (just as with heterosexual couples I'm sure fringe cases can be found). No, the usual problems stem not from the couple doing the raising, but from society who treats the kids differently because of the sexual orientation of the parents.
Considering how badly some heterosexual couples f%#~ up child rearing, I would be very surprised to find any studies that says same sex couples in general rear them even worse (just as with heterosexual couples I'm sure fringe cases can be found). No, the usual problems stem not from the couple doing the raising, but from society who treats the kids differently because of the sexual orientation of the parents.I see your point, but you are probably employing circular reasoning. I think that you are starting with the assumption that same-sex parents are as good (whatever that means) as heterosexual parents. Would you regard as reputable studies which don't seem to support that assumption?The privileges we take as "basic rights" in America change over time. Fifty years ago, people had a right to smoke cigarettes just about anywhere, and inter-racial couples were fighting to establish a "right" to marry in the face of miscegenation laws.(Congrats on your marriage BTW)
I've never seen a reputable study that indicates same-sex marriage (or being around same-sex marriage) will give the couple or their kids cancer. Or a reputable study that indicates heterosexual couples are somehow better parents than same-sex couples.
I think my job is looking into starting a study on children reared by same-sex couples...I'll post what I can, if I can, when I find out more.
|
Not trying to start a flame war... nor am I trying to upset anyone.
I just want to know. Why is it when someone disagrees with a subject, in this case "gay marriage," that supporters automatically go on the offensive and say that you are a and I quote from earlier in the thread "f*cking homophobe?" Just because you disagree, for what ever reason be it political, religous or economical for that reason, does not mean you fear something. It means you disagree. Such things should be open for debate. Not ridicule. Just my 2 copper.
For what it's worth, I find the use of epithets generally unhelpful, and getting into a meta-debate about what does or does not qualify as homophobia is largely a distraction.
|
|
Not trying to start a flame war... nor am I trying to upset anyone.
I just want to know. Why is it when someone disagrees with a subject, in this case "gay marriage," that supporters automatically go on the offensive and say that you are a and I quote from earlier in the thread "f*cking homophobe?" Just because you disagree, for what ever reason be it political, religous or economical for that reason, does not mean you fear something. It means you disagree. Such things should be open for debate. Not ridicule. Just my 2 copper.
CJ,
Probably because most of the time, the arguments aren't arguments, they're abuse about how f&%* are ruining marriage, America, the world, are paedophiles, are abominations, etc. If you put up with that s~~* for long periods of time, your tolerance for more reasonable people who hold the same position tends to degrade. Is it right? Nope. Is it understandable? Yeah, pretty much.|
|
Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Take it a step further: an atheist man can now get married to an atheist woman by a justice of the peace, and they both get full benefits. Yet the same people who view homosexuality as being morally wrong also typically view atheism as being morally wrong. So I kind of feel like, if gays can be denied civil union rights as well as marriage (a la Texas), and that withstands Constitutional scrutiny, then it's only a matter of time before a bill gets passed that says only Christian men and women can get married.
When I married my wife, no gay people told me I was morally wrong and shouldn't be allowed to get married. I figure if they're willing to respect my rights, I ought to return the favor.
My question is why a debate about the merits of various biblical passages is germaine to a legal question. No one is arguing that churches should be told who they can marry (well, no one except for a few who are, in my opinion, nutcases). The framers of the constitution specifically prohibited the establishment or recognition of a state religion in the US. In that light, those churches that support same-sex marriage (and they're out there) should have as much weight as those that do not. And in any case, decisions regarding civil marriage should be made on legal and ethical principles, not religious doctrine.
My question is why a debate about the merits of various biblical passages is germaine to a legal question. And in any case, decisions regarding civil marriage should be made on legal and ethical principles, not religious doctrine.
"Should be" is different from "are," unfortunately. In the U.S. in particular, myriad laws are passed supporting Christian (or at least purportedly Christian) morals as the only ethical principles behind them. Banning gay marriage is only one such example. Unconstitutional? By Jefferson's standards, yes... but try proving that in court. The Texas constitutional ban on gay marriage and gay civil unions is still standing, for example; Texas also has an offical "Jesus Day" by law (June 10, 2000), with a proclomation urging citizens to "follow the example of Jesus."
I'm picking Texas just because I happen to live there now; many other states have similar examples of Christian opinions being passed into established law.
Just because you disagree, for what ever reason be it political, religous or economical for that reason, does not mean you fear something. It means you disagree. Such things should be open for debate. Not ridicule. Just my 2 copper.
And if you're against interracial marriage, then you should not be called a racist? Because, um, you are one. I for one am disinclined to pretend that people who stand athwart the advance of civil rights and yell "stop!" are any species of nice person, for the same reason I refuse to grant the same consideration to foes of anti-lynching laws and defenders of school segregation. You don't get to enjoy the benefits of civility when you abandon decency. The latter must always come first.
But really, if the arguments against gay marriage were merely ridiculous instead of actively malicious and mendacious, that would be a historical step forward.
|
Historically speaking, science is eroding marriage and will continue to do so.
The social function of marriage is to formally recognise ownership of women and delineate inheritance.
Now that women have the scientific evidence to confirm their social significance and we have DNA technology to irrefutably confirm inheritance marriage loses its purpose.
It's just a tradition maintained by tax-breaks and legal loopholes, whereas once it was a meaningful social mechanism.
For proponents of same-sex marriage. If you want the government to recognize these relationships with special benefits, privilages, and responsibilities, please explain why it is in the government's interest to do so. Don't say things like, "Because it is fair." Or "We're no worse than same-sex couples". Those aren't reasons why the government should give recognition to these relationships, these are reasons why people might want it, but they don't offer any benefit to the government or society for doing so.
Interracial marriage is different. You are going to have at least a few people of different races that are going to bump uglies. When this happens on occasion a child will be concieved often on accident. Thus it is in the government's interest to try to motivate those parents to stay together and provide support for the child, so the government doesn't have to. This can't happen with same-sex couples, unless they have some frog DNA.
Notice, I am not saying that we should have same-sex marriages, just that I am waiting for a reason why the government should give a damn about it. In many ways it is in the government's interest not to recognize these relationships.
|
|
For proponents of same-sex marriage. If you want the government to recognize these relationships with special benefits, privilages, and responsibilities, please explain why it is in the government's interest to do so. Don't say things like, "Because it is fair." Or "We're no worse than same-sex couples". Those aren't reasons why the government should give recognition to these relationships, these are reasons why people might want it, but they don't offer any benefit to the government or society for doing so.
Interracial marriage is different. You are going to have at least a few people of different races that are going to bump uglies. When this happens on occasion a child will be concieved often on accident. Thus it is in the government's interest to try to motivate those parents to stay together and provide support for the child, so the government doesn't have to. This can't happen with same-sex couples, unless they have some frog DNA.
Notice, I am not saying that we should have same-sex marriages, just that I am waiting for a reason why the government should give a damn about it. In many ways it is in the government's interest not to recognize these relationships.
This last sentence is something you are going to have to back up if you want to claim something like that, but for the rest...
You can't honestly tell me that government's role in marriage is based solely on procreation. The government recognizes the marriage of many non-procreative couples, so I think your entire supposition is incorrect. There are also many procreative couples that are not married, and the government provides them no special benefit.
In reality, what the legal benefits of marriage provide is the ability for people to organize their finances and legal affairs as a household instead of as separate individuals. It recognizes that people tend to organize themselves into family units, comingle their funds, share responsibilities, and be responsible for one another's welfare.
The ability to file taxes jointly, collect death benefits, etc etc is all a recognition of that interdependent family unit. You don't need all those things to procreate, but they are meaningful for running a household.
Since procreation and marriage are not exclusive to one another, providing the means to effectively run a household to couples of the opposite sex but not of the same sex is entirely arbitrary and places an undue burden on those whose families demographically diverge from the historical norm.
|
|
All Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow and ignore the rest, if they followed all the religious laws in the bible all Christians would look, dress and act like Hasidic Jews.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
True, but for some reason the opponents of gay marriage I've spoken to always want to use Exodus. Right wing Christians seem rather fond of the Old Testament God-- Sodom & Gomorrah, killing of the firstborn, all the heavy-handed stuff.
I suppose if they quoted Paul I'd have to flip over to Corinthians and point out that Paul also said women should keep silent at church...
So exactly how long have you known All Christians?
This last sentence is something you are going to have to back up if you want to claim something like that, but for the rest...
You mention for example, being able to file taxes jointly. Why is this a benefit? Who does it benefit? Does it benefit the government? Does it give the government more money or less?
You can't honestly tell me that government's role in marriage is based solely on procreation. The government recognizes the marriage of many non-procreative couples, so I think your entire supposition is incorrect. There are also many procreative couples that are not married, and the government provides them no special benefit.
Caring for a child does not end with procreation, unfortunatetly too many men don't realize that. The government wants to give a motivation to people to jointly care for their children. Yes, some couples are married who don't have children, either (a) they choose not to [and the government has been told to stay out of their bedrooms] or (b) they can't [and the government has been told to stay out of their medical records]. In either case, the burden to prove that these people will not have children is too high of a standard. Something that is not a high standard if they are of the same sex (they can't natural have children with one another without frog DNA in there somewhere).
As for the couples with children that are not married and don't get benefits, that is because they are not taking advantage of the incentive the government is giving them. The government gives them benefits to get them to join into a legally binding arrangement. The fact that these people choose not to do so and forgo the benefits they could recieve is not the government denying it to them.
Sometimes I wonder if people understand the purpose of incentives. You don't give people benefits for doing things you don't want them to do or don't care if they do or don't do. You give them benefits for doing things you want them to do. That way you motivate them to do those things you want them to do.
Since procreation and marriage are not exclusive to one another, providing the means to effectively run a household to couples of the opposite sex but not of the same sex is entirely arbitrary and places an undue burden on those whose families demographically diverge from the historical norm.
Not gaining a benefit is not having an undue burden. And you still haven't said why it is in the government's interest, you have just said why it is in the individuals' interest.
|
|
I won't belabor the point, pres man. I'm not here to convince you of anything - it sounds actually like you've made up your mind, but I will address two points.
First, none of those legal benefits attached to marriage have anything to do with procreation. I could see if legal marriage contained a bunch of benefits that actually impacted people's ability to have and raise children, but it does not. Take, for example, survivor benefits for Social Security - if it was about children, they'd give the benefit to the children, but they don't; they give it to the surviving spouse, often in cases where the children have long since moved out. How is that fostering procreation?
Second, your last sentence has me scratching my head. Why on this green earth would we want the government acting out of ITS OWN INTEREST? Is that what you are suggesting? The government exists solely and exclusively for the benefit of the citizenry. Anything the government is doing out of self-interest, rather than for the benefit of the country needs to be discarded immediately and the people responsible for it fired.
First, none of those legal benefits attached to marriage have anything to do with procreation. I could see if legal marriage contained a bunch of benefits that actually impacted people's ability to have and raise children, but it does not. Take, for example, survivor benefits for Social Security - if it was about children, they'd give the benefit to the children, but they don't; they give it to the surviving spouse, often in cases where the children have long since moved out. How is that fostering procreation?
If I had to guess, it would have something to do with the spouses making sacrifices over the life of the time the social security was been gained, in order to theorically to raise children. For example, a wife might not work or only work part time in order to have a more stable home environment. In return the husband works more gaining more social security than the wife. If he dies before she does, she will have sacrificed her earning potential in order to better raise the children. So as not to negatively reinforce people with the idea that they have to either choose to gain their own benefits or spend more time with their children they allow the spouse to inherit the benefits. That would be my guess.
Second, your last sentence has me scratching my head. Why on this green earth would we want the government acting out of ITS OWN INTEREST? Is that what you are suggesting? The government exists solely and exclusively for the benefit of the citizenry. Anything the government is doing out of self-interest, rather than for the benefit of the country needs to be discarded immediately and the people responsible for it fired.
A government could give a bunch of free money to the citizens, but is that actually in the society's best interest? When I say in the government's interest I mean in our overall society through the prism of government actions. If the government collects less taxes, is that in the society's interest as performed through the government? Not usually, because it limits what the government can do.
Second, your last sentence has me scratching my head. Why on this green earth would we want the government acting out of ITS OWN INTEREST? Is that what you are suggesting? The government exists solely and exclusively for the benefit of the citizenry. Anything the government is doing out of self-interest, rather than for the benefit of the country needs to be discarded immediately and the people responsible for it fired.A government could give a bunch of free money to the citizens, but is that actually in the society's best interest? When I say in the government's interest I mean in our overall society through the prism of government actions. If the government collects less taxes, is that in the society's interest as...
Pres, whether you agree with government being involved in the wedding business, it's way too late. The government already decided that opposite-sex couples people are allowed to receive a federally and state recognized set of benefits... and same-sex couples are not allowed.
Same-sex couples being allowed to marry has absolutely zero negative impact on the rights of opposite-sex married couples or the financial well-being of the country.
Same-sex couples being allowed to marry has absolutely zero negative impact on the rights of opposite-sex married couples or the financial well-being of the country.
And what does it have any positive impact on. If you want to push for change, demonstrat why the change is needed. Why is the status quo not good enough? Again, I don't want to hear about how it is "unfair". What benefits are there to the rest of society to inacting the changes suggested?
...Why is it when someone disagrees with a subject, in this case "gay marriage," that supporters automatically go on the offensive and say that you are a and I quote from earlier in the thread "f*cking homophobe?"...
For what it's worth, I find the use of epithets generally unhelpful, and getting into a meta-debate about what does or does not qualify as homophobia is largely a distraction.
As the one who initially typed that epithet, you are both correct... it isn't the least bit helpful in a civil discussion. Sometimes my frustration at the lack of progress on this and related issues bubbles over in anger.
If anyone in the thread can provide rational & reasonable reasons why opposite-sex marriage should be recognized by the government and same-sex marriages should not, I'll gladly apologize.
Same-sex couples being allowed to marry has absolutely zero negative impact on the rights of opposite-sex married couples or the financial well-being of the country.And what does it have any positive impact on. If you want to push for change, demonstrat why the change is needed. Why is the status quo not good enough? Again, I don't want to hear about how it is "unfair". What benefits are there to the rest of society to inacting the changes suggested?
Do you really feel that there are no positive changes to society in recognizing same-sex marriages? And what benefits do opposite-sex marriages provide to society?
Any benefits to "society" that opposite-sex marriage provide can just as readily be provided by recognizing marriages of same-sex people.
Same-sex couples being allowed to marry has absolutely zero negative impact on the rights of opposite-sex married couples or the financial well-being of the country.And what does it have any positive impact on. If you want to push for change, demonstrat why the change is needed. Why is the status quo not good enough? Again, I don't want to hear about how it is "unfair". What benefits are there to the rest of society to inacting the changes suggested?Do you really feel that there are no positive changes to society in recognizing same-sex marriages? And what benefits do opposite-sex marriages provide to society?
Any benefits to "society" that opposite-sex marriage provide can just as readily be provided by recognizing marriages of same-sex people.
Two opposite sex people could potentially without planning have offspring. This is impossible for same sex couples. Are suggesting that the physical dynamics of those two relationships are exactly the same? If they are not identically then there may be issues that the government cares about with opposite sex couples that they are not concerned with about same sex couples. When same sex couples begin having offspring together by accident, then maybe you'll see the laws change.
|
|
Two opposite sex people could potentially without planning have offspring. This is impossible for same sex couples. Are suggesting that the physical dynamics of those two relationships are exactly the same? If they are not identically then there may be issues that the government cares about with opposite sex couples that they are not concerned with about same sex couples. When same sex couples begin having offspring together by accident, then maybe you'll see the laws change.Same-sex couples being allowed to marry has absolutely zero negative impact on the rights of opposite-sex married couples or the financial well-being of the country.And what does it have any positive impact on. If you want to push for change, demonstrat why the change is needed. Why is the status quo not good enough? Again, I don't want to hear about how it is "unfair". What benefits are there to the rest of society to inacting the changes suggested?Do you really feel that there are no positive changes to society in recognizing same-sex marriages? And what benefits do opposite-sex marriages provide to society?
Any benefits to "society" that opposite-sex marriage provide can just as readily be provided by recognizing marriages of same-sex people.
Can you indicate where this has been the stated purpose of government tying certain benefits to married spouses? I don't mean retroactively - a lot of conservative politicians probably say similar things in their speeches. I mean, when those benefits were established, show me that that is the rationale.
Two opposite sex people could potentially without planning have offspring. This is impossible for same sex couples. Are suggesting that the physical dynamics of those two relationships are exactly the same? If they are not identically then there may be issues that the government cares about with opposite sex couples that they are not concerned with about same sex couples. When same sex couples begin having offspring together by accident, then maybe you'll see the laws change.
So you are in favor of blocking the marriage of opposite-sex couples who are unable or decide not to conceive? Would you consider it fair to require an opposite-sex couple to sign a contract with the state that they agree to have children, and that they both pass medical tests proving they are fertile?
A same-sex couple can have a surrogate sperm/egg donor or surrogate mother carry their child (just like an opposite-sex couple). A same-sex couple can adopt children and provide a stable loving environment (just like an opposite-sex couple).
A same-sex couple can have a surrogate sperm/egg donor or surrogate mother carry their child (just like an opposite-sex couple). A same-sex couple can adopt children and provide a stable loving environment (just like an opposite-sex couple).
And sterile opposite-sex couples aren't required to adopt either.
One.
Hmmm?
|
|
Same-sex couples being allowed to marry has absolutely zero negative impact on the rights of opposite-sex married couples or the financial well-being of the country.And what does it have any positive impact on. If you want to push for change, demonstrat why the change is needed. Why is the status quo not good enough? Again, I don't want to hear about how it is "unfair". What benefits are there to the rest of society to inacting the changes suggested?
I would say the benifit is that we as a nation, to hold any valid claim to Justice for all, must hold everyone, regardless of race, age religious beleifs, or sexual orintation ,to the same ideals. I'd say society would benifit from holding the concept of equality and fairness above all others. The United States is a nation built off of these core beliefs, to not honor that is a tragedy of magnificent proportions. But that's just my 2cp.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
True, but for some reason the opponents of gay marriage I've spoken to always want to use Exodus. Right wing Christians seem rather fond of the Old Testament God-- Sodom & Gomorrah, killing of the firstborn, all the heavy-handed stuff.
I suppose if they quoted Paul I'd have to flip over to Corinthians and point out that Paul also said women should keep silent at church...
I wouldn't argue with you either.
So exactly how long have you known All Christians?All Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow and ignore the rest, if they followed all the religious laws in the bible all Christians would look, dress and act like Hasidic Jews.
That's an excellent point. Rather similar to what I say when people point out that homosexuality is called an abomination in the Bible. If they have a Bible handy, I'll flip it open and show them that just a short distance from that passage, it also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination, but I have yet to see them protesting outside of a Red Lobster with the same vehemency that they have with gay marriage.Yes, if you're quoting from Exodus. Not so if you're quoting from Romans.
True, but for some reason the opponents of gay marriage I've spoken to always want to use Exodus. Right wing Christians seem rather fond of the Old Testament God-- Sodom & Gomorrah, killing of the firstborn, all the heavy-handed stuff.
I suppose if they quoted Paul I'd have to flip over to Corinthians and point out that Paul also said women should keep silent at church...
I don't know all christians but I have studied there religious beliefs and every sect of Christianity choose which biblical laws to follow and discard the rest. Even the most orthodox sects like Greek and Russian Orthodoxies no longer follow most of the laws set down in the Old Testament
Point of intrest, the first gay couple to get married have divorced.
Link.
I would say the benifit is that we as a nation, to hold any valid claim to Justice for all, must hold everyone, regardless of race, age religious beleifs, or sexual orintation ,to the same ideals. I'd say society would benifit from holding the concept of equality and fairness above all others. The United States is a nation built off of these core beliefs, to not honor that is a tragedy of magnificent proportions. But that's just my 2cp.
Wasted on a troll like pres man, but still worth saying for other reasons.
I would say the benefit is that we as a nation, to hold any valid claim to Justice for all, must hold everyone, regardless of race, age religious beliefs, or sexual orientation ,to the same ideals. I'd say society would benefit from holding the concept of equality and fairness above all others. The United States is a nation built off of these core beliefs, to not honor that is a tragedy of magnificent proportions. But that's just my 2cp.
+2
Why is the status quo not good enough? Again, I don't want to hear about how it is "unfair". What benefits are there to the rest of society to inacting the changes suggested?
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist;Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me."
--Pastor Martin Niemoeller
Read what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had to say about what they termed the "tyranny of the majority." They answer your question far better than I can.
Except there is no right that the government has to recognize the particular relationship you are in as a "marriage". You are making up a right that does not exist and then saying that people are being denied that right.