RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The world hasn't ended.An estimated 11,000 same-sex couples married in California when same-sex marriage was legal. Where's the apocalypse? Personally, I find it more morally wrong that actor Charlie Sheen only got a "light slap on the wrist" after admitting to striking his wife.
And those 11K people I have empathy for, since the law that was passed was done in defiance of the constitution of California, but the politicians ignored the rule of law. The entire mess of challenging prop 8 in the California supreme court was a farce, and amazingly they got it right for once. (The ammendment process is not "The people may ammend the constitution, when we the courts allow it.")
Now is CA (and OH)'s constitution too easy to ammend? That's a debate for another thread.
...it seems entirely intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against same sex marriage while accepting discrimination against poly-amorous unions.I agree, however, I think it is equally intellectually dishonest to oppose discrimination against heterosexual marriage while accepting discrimination against same sex unions.That was the only intellectually honest conclusion I could reach too.
It's one of the challenges I have with my own party. How can the party of smaller less intrusive government support lunacy like sodomy laws? It makes my head hurt.
I agree. What's the old chestnut? A government big enough to give you anything can take away anything? There are too few So-Cons who forget that.
When it comes to politics, I know I'd suck, since I am a 'there but no farther' kind of guy. I'll work with someone up to the point where I disagree with them, then they can count on me to oppose them. If the people I'd represent don't like it... fire me.
I hear you! It's a damned shame that honesty and consistency basically render someone unelectable.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You do realize that one of the greatest superheroines of all time was created by a polygamist? Why should we disparige his works? ;-)Yeah, and Chinatown was directed by a convicted child molester. It's still a great movie. And the director is still criminal scum. The movie in no way validates his actions in the real world; the two can (and should be) evaluated independently of one another. (Which I suspect you understand, but are just trying to "score points" by being "oh-so-clever.")
You did read the rest of the comment, that started 'seriously' right?
I've no problem with putting humour in a post. Mayhaps you should see the smiley and understand that.
That being said, I would rather see incestuous marriage allowed than have it be a roadblock to granting all citizens at or above the age of marjority the right to enter into consensual contracts. Not that I endorse it, but rather that I see it as the lesser of two evils.
I have to agree. Government is a magnet for compulsive meddlers. Give them the power to interfere in people's personal lives, and they'll find ways to abuse that power in all kinds of bizarre ways, just because they can. That doesn't mean the government should be disbanded; only that its power should be sharply curtailed, within very narrowly specified bounds (national defense, infrastructure, regulation of commerce).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Did this majority ask how the recipients felt about civil unions?Actually I'd put myself in the 60%+ majority that doesn't have an issue with civil unions. :-)My view may not be popular, but I can defend it.I'd guess you are in roughly 52% of the majority. :)
I could flip that and ask if the minority cares about upsetting the majority.
I don't feel that the government defining marriage and qualifications to meet it is 'opressing' the majority, anymore than I honestly believe that I am 'oppressed' that I have to drive on the right side of the road, at increased risk to me.
I do feel though that creating 'fred' is easier than making a seperate highway for left handed folk.
And government recognition of marriage is not a 'right'.
O.k. So we can call it a privilege. Gays and lesbians are not allowed the same privilege as heterosexuals. I have already conceded that federal and state government do in fact restrict privileges. I still do not see a good reason to restrict this one.
Personally? Yes. Legally? If the institution is to be changed then the courts is not where to change it. States can already set qualifications on the license.
O.k. Thank you. It is easier to discuss when I know where you are coming from.
You do realize that one of the greatest superheroines of all time was created by a polygamist? Why should we disparige his works? ;-)
O.k. I am not sure how this is relevant, but I will bite. Personally, I wouldn't. If art were created by a pedophile, I would likely want nothing to do with it. Although, I would be somewhat mixed on that. Should not the art stand on its own merit and not the actions of its creator? I do not have an answer for that. I hope this clarifies my position.
At least with a legisltative construct, it becomes a matter of 'you want to educate and convince the people to allow your behaviour? Knock yourselves out.'
I do not trust the majority to always act with best intentions of everyone in mind. I am sure you could get a majority to vote to the determent of some other minority as well. Let's redistribute wealth since we all don't like the 'wealthy'.
The government can't (shouldn't) regulate on 'danger'. It's 'dangerous' every time I get in my car. Should we ban cars?
Would it save a life? Thousands? At what point would it become 'worth it'? I agree, this is a slippery slope and I do not know where we draw the line.
It seems to me this arguments can be used for pro same-sex marriage. I mean, is not one of the arguments that same-sex marriage is 'dangerous' to our family and society at large?
Again, for me, yup. I'm hung up on the word having one meaning.
Same-sex marriage would still have one meaning.
And if you do not care if same-sex couples enjoy the same privileges, why the hang up on the word? You said Fred, so, why not marriage? What difference does it make?
I've no problem with putting humour in a post. Mayhaps you should see the smiley and understand that.
Clearly understood, but still found to be a bit beneath you -- thus the parenthetical note. Maybe I just have no sense of humor?
…the two can (and should be) evaluated independently of one another.
I am inclined to agree with you. My concern is that I do not want to 'support' someone whose actions I so strongly disagree with by consuming their product.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've no problem with putting humour in a post. Mayhaps you should see the smiley and understand that.Clearly understood, but still found to be a bit beneath you -- thus the parenthetical note. Maybe I just have no sense of humor?
Sorry. Just a little testy and trying not to be.
I actually find the Moulton story kind of romantic in a way. Both women clearly loved him, and when we lost him at such an early age, the two women stayed together for the rest of their lives. (and didn't need a piece of paper to afirm their love).
I think Paizo might have humour for sale in the store. Gods know they have everything else.
I ask different questions than others evidently.
"Why should the government recognize any type of personal relationship with legal benefits?"
"Not what harm is there in allowing same-sex marriages, but instead, what is the benefit to the society for the government giving those relationships legal benefits?"
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And government recognition of marriage is not a 'right'.O.k. So we can call it a privilege. Gays and lesbians are not allowed the same privilege as heterosexuals. I have already conceded that federal and state government do in fact restrict privileges. I still do not see a good reason to restrict this one.
Tradition? I guess the converse is why should the government extend the privileges to only a couple? why not to individuals? Or to groups?
(In all honesty, the more I look, the more I'm for getting the government out of the marriage business and letting private companies/individuals decide. Would make working for the government a bear since 'to be fair' they'd only offer benefits to their employees and no one else.)
Personally? Yes. Legally? If the institution is to be changed then the courts is not where to change it. States can already set qualifications on the license.
O.k. Thank you. It is easier to discuss when I know where you are coming from.
I try to be frank, I don't always succeed, see below.
You do realize that one of the greatest superheroines of all time was created by a polygamist? Why should we disparige his works? ;-)
O.k. I am not sure how this is relevant, but I will bite.
When one person doesn't get the joke, laugh at them, when two don't laugh at yourself. Kirth I formally appologize and promise to put more ranks in Craft (humour) when I go up a level.
At least with a legisltative construct, it becomes a matter of 'you want to educate and convince the people to allow your behaviour? Knock yourselves out.'
I do not trust the majority to always act with best intentions of everyone in mind. I am sure you could get a majority to vote to the determent of some other minority as well. Let's redistribute wealth since we all don't like the 'wealthy'.
I don't trust anyone to act in my best interest. At the same time, completely changing things due to the minority is wrong. In theory, we elect represenatives to represent us and make policy, not judges.
The government can't (shouldn't) regulate on 'danger'. It's 'dangerous' every time I get in my car. Should we ban cars?
Would it save a life? Thousands? At what point would it become 'worth it'? I agree, this is a slippery slope and I do not know where we draw the line.
I don't know either. It's always a balance between freedom of an individual and the good of the government. I mean look at guns. Should I be allowed to have a P-90? If I can afford it, yes. Should my neighbors be allowed to not worry about me having one? Yes. Should I be kept from having one because my neighbors fear I might go off the meds and shoot the place up? Hmm...
It seems to me this arguments can be used for pro same-sex marriage. I mean, is not one of the arguments that same-sex marriage is 'dangerous' to our family and society at large?
One of several, sure. My argument comes down to method. It should be through the legislature.
Same-sex marriage would still have one meaning.
And if you do not care if same-sex couples enjoy the same privileges, why the hang up on the word? You said Fred, so, why not marriage? What difference does it make?
But marriage would change. And that's the difference to me. Marriage means a man and a woman (hopefully) joined in Matromony. I'd rather see a seperate institution created. 'Fred' is shorthand, but it's not 'Marriage'.
Like I said, I'm old fashioned. If, through the leigslature, Marriage was ammended, I'd have to live with it. I'd just prefer Fred.
And if you do not care if same-sex couples enjoy the same privileges, why the hang up on the word? You said Fred, so, why not marriage? What difference does it make?But marriage would change. And that's the difference to me. Marriage means a man and a woman (hopefully) joined in Matromony. I'd rather see a seperate institution created. 'Fred' is shorthand, but it's not 'Marriage'.
Like I said, I'm old fashioned. If, through the leigslature, Marriage was ammended, I'd have to live with it. I'd just prefer Fred.
Prince Humperdinck: Man and wife. Say man and wife.
Prince Humperdinck: Man and wife. Say man and wife.
And if you do not care if same-sex couples enjoy the same privileges, why the hang up on the word? You said Fred, so, why not marriage? What difference does it make?But marriage would change. And that's the difference to me. Marriage means a man and a woman (hopefully) joined in Matromony. I'd rather see a seperate institution created. 'Fred' is shorthand, but it's not 'Marriage'.
Like I said, I'm old fashioned. If, through the leigslature, Marriage was ammended, I'd have to live with it. I'd just prefer Fred.
LOL!
Just a thought, I really like how many religious protesters of gay marriage bring out the then you have to allow polygamy argument. However, if you read the bible, polygamy IS allowed, Rebakah and Leah for instance.
just something to think about.
**WARNING > ABSOLUTE SILLINESS AHEAD <**
So by that logic I can look forward to haveing mutiple husbands. I think thats why I enjoy my life so much as it because I refuse to limit myself to just one guy. Now I won't have to I can have a nice young husband as a sex toy, then a rich husband, then I can have one that loves to do house cleaning and other domestic chores. Sign me up, I'm all for it now.
Just a thought, I really like how many religious protesters of gay marriage bring out the then you have to allow polygamy argument. However, if you read the bible, polygamy IS allowed, Rebakah and Leah for instance.
just something to think about.
So poly-marriage has a lot more historical/social precedent than same-sex marriage. Thus if we support same-sex marriage, then it becomes illogical not to support poly-marriage.
Thus if we support same-sex marriage, then it becomes illogical not to support poly-marriage.
I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall about three or four people upthread saying that if poly-marriage needs to be allowed in order to permit gay marriage, then so be it. Sort of a minimal restriction clause. And Bitter Thorn has posted cogent and well-constructed arguments as to why marriage to minors need not therefore automatically be permitted, by placing minors in a separate category from adults on the basis of dependency and inability to competently provide consent. Medical issues with regards to incestual marriages were also discussed.
In other words, you seem to be about two pages behind -- unless you're just repeating that point for emphasis?
Thus if we support same-sex marriage, then it becomes illogical not to support poly-marriage.I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall about three or four people upthread saying that if poly-marriage needs to be allowed in order to permit gay marriage, then so be it. Sort of a minimal restriction clause. And Bitter Thorn has posted cogent and well-constructed arguments as to why marriage to minors need not therefore automatically be permitted, by placing minors in a separate category from adults on the basis of dependency and inability to competently provide consent. Medical issues with regards to incestual marriages were also discussed.
In other words, you seem to be about two pages behind -- unless you're just repeating that point for emphasis?
Wow, I didn't realize that 5-6 people constituted everyone that supported same-sex marriages.
Thanks, dad.
Tradition?
Not a good enough answer. History has demonstrated some traditions are bad and need to be stopped.
I guess the converse is why should the government extend the privileges to only a couple? why not to individuals? Or to groups?
Can an individual enter a contract with themselves? I guess a will could be considered such. Maybe it is something that needs to be considered. Just because something has never been done before does not mean it should not be done.
When one person doesn't get the joke, laugh at them, when two don't laugh at yourself.
I am trying very hard to stay away from humor as I tend to be sarcastic and I think that would only polarize us. I am not suggesting you do the same. Only that, because of my frame of mind, I missed it.
I don't trust anyone to act in my best interest. At the same time, completely changing things due to the minority is wrong. In theory, we elect represenatives to represent us and make policy, not judges.
I am not suggesting we do whatever any one minority wants. As I understand it, the California constitution did not specifically state that a marriage was between one man and one woman. Therefore, same-sex marriage was legal. Then Proposition 8 changed the constitution so that same-sex partners could not be married.
The minority is not asking that anyone take away privileges of the majority. They are asking to enjoy the same privileges. Since I can see no harm to society or any infringement upon the majority, what's the problem? Furthermore, without reason, why should the minority be prevented from enjoying the same privilege?
My argument comes down to method. It should be through the legislature.
But what about when the legislature fails? In this particular instance, you have a majority which wishes to restrict the privileges it enjoys from a minority without a valid reason. Surely you recognize that certain freedoms need to be protected against…even against the will of the majority.
But marriage would change.
How? I thought the only difference was the name. What if we gave you Old Marriage? Or Classic Marriage? O.k. Some humor slipped in. My apologies.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Tradition?Not a good enough answer. History has demonstrated some traditions are bad and need to be stopped.
But is this one of those? The people do have a right to determine their government and how it functions. To go back to the smoking ban, I can fight to change it, or adapt to it. I still think it's wrong, but I'm not going to argue the courts should say it's discriminatory.
I guess the converse is why should the government extend the privileges to only a couple? why not to individuals? Or to groups?
Can an individual enter a contract with themselves? I guess a will could be considered such. Maybe it is something that needs to be considered. Just because something has never been done before does not mean it should not be done.[/spoiler]
At the same time, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. Despite what Walker wrote this is societal change.
When one person doesn't get the joke, laugh at them, when two don't laugh at yourself.I am trying very hard to stay away from humor as I tend to be sarcastic and I think that would only polarize us. I am not suggesting you do the same. Only that, because of my frame of mind, I missed it.You're not the only one though, so it was my fault.
I don't trust anyone to act in my best interest. At the same time, completely changing things due to the minority is wrong. In theory, we elect represenatives to represent us and make policy, not judges.I am not suggesting we do whatever any one minority wants. As I understand it, the California constitution did not specifically state that a marriage was between one man and one woman. Therefore, same-sex marriage was legal. Then Proposition 8 changed the constitution so that same-sex partners could not be married.The constitution didn't state that two guys, a girl, and a pizza place could be married. When it was written, the concept of SSM was as alien as us having this discussion on the internet. When the issue was raised, the referrendum was passed, ammending the constitution, through the methods given in the constitution.
The minority is not asking that anyone take away privileges of the majority. They are asking to enjoy the same privileges. Since I can see no harm to society or any infringement upon the majority, what's the problem? Furthermore, without reason, why should the minority be prevented from enjoying the same privilege?Because when the issue was raised, the people clarified the vaugeness of the issue. A benefit structure doesn't benefit everyone. As I've said before, from a legal standpoint, people all have the same access to the institution.
My argument comes down to method. It should be through the legislature.But what about when the legislature fails? In this particular instance, you have a majority which wishes to restrict the privileges it enjoys from a minority without a valid reason. Surely you recognize that certain freedoms need to be protected against…even against the will of the majority.They are, and they are clearly enumerated. In this case, the institution of marriage has qualifiers that are set by the government. No one is being denied any freedoms. Even the CA supremes have stated the DP provide generally the same rights, protections, and benefits as marriage.
Ed Whelan references some interesting viewpoints at Benchmemos, BTW.
|
|
How? I thought the only difference was the name. What if we gave you Old Marriage? Or Classic Marriage? O.k. Some humor slipped in. My apologies.
Haven't you learned the lessons of new coke, even gay people dislike new coke, if we call it new marriage, no one will want it, not even the pedophiles and polygamists.
Wow, I didn't realize that 5-6 people constituted everyone that supported same-sex marriages.
Not at all, but I was indeed operating under the assumption that the others could read.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How? I thought the only difference was the name. What if we gave you Old Marriage? Or Classic Marriage? O.k. Some humor slipped in. My apologies.Haven't you learned the lessons of new coke, even gay people dislike new coke, if we call it new marriage, no one will want it, not even the pedophiles and polygamists.
Hmm, so we can give teh gheys 'Diet Marriage'? ;-)
But is this one of those?
Yes.
The people do have a right to determine their government and how it functions.
As long as it does not infringe on others. I see not allowing same-sex couples the same privileges enjoyed by heterosexual couples as an infringement.
To go back to the smoking ban, I can fight to change it, or adapt to it. I still think it's wrong, but I'm not going to argue the courts should say it's discriminatory.
But saying you are not going to argue it in courts does not invalidate same-sex couples from wanting the same privileges others enjoy. For all I know, you do not smoke and while you may think it is wrong, you simply do not care enough to stick your neck out about it. And that is fair enough.
However, these same-sex couples do feel very strongly that they are being discriminated against without good reason.
At the same time, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be. Despite what Walker wrote this is societal change.
Agreed. So the argument that we have always done things a certain way is useless. The 'change' or tradition must be weighed on its own merit.
Societal change is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. So I do not see it being of much use as an argument. Let us return to arguing the merits of allowing/not-allowing same-sex marriage.
The constitution didn't state that two guys, a girl, and a pizza place could be married.
But surely we can agree that unless the constitution specifically said Californians could not do something, they were generally free to do as they pleased as long as it did not infringe on other's rights and privileges.
When the issue was raised, the referrendum was passed, ammending the constitution, through the methods given in the constitution.
And change itself, is neither bad nor good. So we must weight the referendum by its own merits. How does it protect society or California or its citizens? I think we can agree that it is discriminatory, yes? But discriminatory is not always bad, right? Is there a good reason for this discrimination beyond tradition? I fail to see one.
…people all have the same access to the institution.
I disagree. I am really trying to stay away from examples here, but do we agree preventing mix-races from marrying does not prevent them from having the same access to the institution? Do we agree that it is discriminatory without good reason and therefore bad?
No one is being denied any freedoms.
They are not being treated equally and without any good reason that I can see. Would it be o.k. for the government to tell you who you can and can not marry without good cause? Assuming you are straight, you probably would not mind being told you can not marry another guy. But what if the government said for the good of society, you have to marry a guy and are not allowed to marry a woman? You know with the economy the way it is and the shortage of jobs and all…we really do not need the risk of another mouth to feed. So, you are free to marry as long as it is with a guy so we can ensure you do not increase the population.
Matthew, you raised the point yourself that cars are dangerous. We can agree that we should not simply ban cars. Can you prove that same-sex marriage is more dangerous than cars? If not, why should we ban it?
|
Precedent can be overturned: Banning interracial marriage unconstitutional.
I am no legal scholar, but since these are both civil rights cases involving rights to marry, this case could be considered to have precedence as well.
And it shows a precedence of turning over previous court decisions.
I kindda find that ironic because so many of the african american religious leaders are so doggedly opposed to saying it is a civil rights matter. Leaders like sharpton,jackson,farekan and others I can't remember point out in their own brand of logic that you can hide being gay but you can't hide being "black" so it's not a civil rights issue.
It doesn't make any sense to me but thats their logic.I am more than a little worried by this case because of the fact that it violates a states sovern rights. The federal government should never tell a state "you can't pass that law within your own borders"
If the people of californa don't want gay marriage forced on them then they shouldn't have it forced on them. Plain and simple end of disscussion. Please realise I am a gay man but I would rather fight for true change in law and public opinion than have "activist" judges tell the people of a state your rights don't matter, we know whats best for you whether you like it or not.
To sum up, I see this as a issue of states rights to tell the feds "no" than about the civil rights of a minority group.
Yeah, just imagine what this will do to medical marijuana laws if the Supreme Court decides to hold up this decision.
So poly-marriage has a lot more historical/social precedent than same-sex marriage. Thus if we support same-sex marriage, then it becomes illogical not to support poly-marriage.
Makes sense. In fact, it seems to me that most of the problems people have with polygamy are actually related to the abuse of minors, which is already illegal in it's own right.
Certain financial arrangments might require adjustment, but that seems like a minor concern, and no reason to criminalize a behavior.
Did somebody win yet?
Yes; yesterday. :)
Tradition?Not a good enough answer. History has demonstrated some traditions are bad and need to be stopped.But is this one of those? The people do have a right to determine their government and how it functions. To go back to the smoking ban, I can fight to change it, or adapt to it. I still think it's wrong, but I'm not going to argue the courts should say it's discriminatory.
I'm going to take issue with not appealing to the courts on this issue. When the bar and restaurant smoking ban was passed by the Colorado state legislature (after being rejected twice as a statewide ballot initiative, BTW) we immediately took the state to court for violating the property rights of business owners, and I think it was the right thing to do. We got our a$$ handed to us by a judiciary here in Colorado that takes an expansive view of state power, but it was still the right thing to do. I'm not sure it was politically and legally helpful because of the precedent it established, but I think when the legislature or the majority of voters infringe on the rights of the minority the judicial branch provides a key check and balance.
I view all the governments branches' primary function as protecting our rights, and I see this as the key role of the judiciary branch.
I'm not saying the judiciary should, in effect, make up law, but it should certainly be a defense against the abuse of power by the other branches.
I also think much of the divergence in our positions stems from the fact that I have a far more expansive view of basic human rights.
|
|
who cares about this stuff anyways? go troll on a political message board. Paizo is for games.
Unless we are creating a new marriage proposal ban board game.
Seriously; marriage is a quasi-religious institution anyways. If you love someone forever, stay with them forever. Why do people want to be recognized as married?
For the taxes.
its always about the money in the end.
who cares about this stuff anyways?
I do.
go troll on a political message board.
No. There are people I enjoy debating with here.
Seriously; marriage is a quasi-religious institution anyways. If you love someone forever, stay with them forever. Why do people want to be recognized as married?
Hospital visits and survivor benefits to mention the first two that jump to mind. Oh, yeah, and taxes too. Thanks for reminding me.
who cares about this stuff anyways? go troll on a political message board. Paizo is for games.
Unless we are creating a new marriage proposal ban board game.
Seriously; marriage is a quasi-religious institution anyways. If you love someone forever, stay with them forever. Why do people want to be recognized as married?
For the taxes.
its always about the money in the end.
Not to sound snarky, but if you aren't interested in the topic why bother to look and comment?
|
who cares about this stuff anyways? go troll on a political message board. Paizo is for games.
Unless we are creating a new marriage proposal ban board game.
Seriously; marriage is a quasi-religious institution anyways. If you love someone forever, stay with them forever. Why do people want to be recognized as married?
For the taxes.
its always about the money in the end.
First off don't like it stay out of the Off-Topic Discussion Thread simple.
Second marriage is not a religious institution. It is not owned in regulated by religion, every culture in the world had marriage or a form thereof independent of any single religion, (despite the bullshit rhetoric that is peddled) and the first gay union is recorded as far back as ancient Egypt. Marriage is not for religion to define, it has no more right to define it than EVERY single culture on the face of this planet that has ever existed.
So why should the government or society care about giving any benefits to any kind of relationship? Not what benefit is there to individuals, we know those, but what is the benefit to the overall society/government to do such a thing?
Trolling.
Not to sound snarky, but if you aren't interested in the topic why bother to look and comment?
Dohp! It's a trap!
|
|
So why should the government or society care about giving any benefits to any kind of relationship? Not what benefit is there to individuals, we know those, but what is the benefit to the overall society/government to do such a thing?
It`s a weird governmental ethics thing, they encourage people not too smoke here in Canada by raising the taxes on cigarettes to an exorbitant amount. They encourage people to be married by giving them tax cuts and legal benefits. That`s the best excuse I can see.
So why should the government or society care about giving any benefits to any kind of relationship? Not what benefit is there to individuals, we know those, but what is the benefit to the overall society/government to do such a thing?
I would tend to say "social engineering", but even if some social benefit could be demonstrated I oppose central planning of family and social structure at least as much as I oppose central economic planning.
|
|
I'm not. The rational case for heterosexuals-only marriage rights does not exist.Then you have far more confidence in the government to act rationally that I do... :P
Just because you disagree with the argument does not mean it is not rational. Any time you would like to debate that part feel free as I am sure the vast preponderance of historical data will make it easy to pick apart your position.
Otherwise, California would not be the clean, smog-free state it is now.
ROFLMAO
Any time you would like to debate that part feel free as I am sure the vast preponderance of historical data will make it easy to pick apart your position.
I would be curious to see the vast preponderance of historical evidence.
Just because you disagree with the argument does not mean it is not rational. Any time you would like to debate that part feel free as I am sure the vast preponderance of historical data will make it easy to pick apart your position.I'm not. The rational case for heterosexuals-only marriage rights does not exist.Then you have far more confidence in the government to act rationally that I do... :P
Do you think we can seriously deconstruct the sociological pros and cons of the history of "traditional" marriage on this thread?
|
|
I did say quasi-religious. marriage is half religious institution and half social.
I visit people all the time in hospitals Im not married to. Are you referring specifically to pulling partners off life support or Making medical decisions about them when the cannot themselves? A Living Will
can be made up that will instruct what you want done with your medical treatment in the event you cannot make that decision yourself. You can visit terminally ill people in the hospital. I a friend dying of AIDS up until he died.
Survivor benefits.....all about the money.
don't get me wrong: I think people should be able to marry whomever they want. I think its wrong that marriage is "controlled" by religious and social political nut jobs. But people are seriously fooling themselves if they don't believe that marriage "rights" are about money. If you love someone who needs a silly piece of paper to prove it?
Oh yeah! You do if you want to save some money. Here is how marriage was defined in Rome:
Marriage in ancient Rome had mythical beginnings, starting with the abduction of the Sabine Women. Romulus and his band of male immigrants were rejected conubium, the legal right to intermarriage, from the Sabines. According to Livy, Romulus and his men abduct the Sabine maidens, but promise them an honorable marriage, in which they will enjoy the benefits of property, citizenship, and children. These three things seem to define the purpose of marriage in ancient Rome.
The word matrimonium, the root for our own word for marriage, matrimony, defines the institution's main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking to woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.
Consortium is a word used for the sharing of property, usually used in a technical sense for the property held by heirs, but could also be used in the context of marriage, such usage was commonly seen in Christian writings. However, the sharing of water and fire (aquae et ignis communiciatio) was symbolically more important. It refers to the sharing of natural resources. Worldly possessions transferred automatically from the wife to the husband in archaic times, whereas the classical marriage kept the wife's property separate.
In order for the union of a man and woman to be legitimate, there needed to be consent legally and morally. Both parties had to be willing and intend to marry, and both needed their fathers' consent. If all other legal conditions were met, a marriage was made.
Its always been about the money.
Just because you disagree with the argument does not mean it is not rational. Any time you would like to debate that part feel free as I am sure the vast preponderance of historical data will make it easy to pick apart your position.
I'd be happy to debate you. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're trying to say...
Do you think we can seriously deconstruct the sociological pros and cons of the history of "traditional" marriage on this thread?Just because you disagree with the argument does not mean it is not rational. Any time you would like to debate that part feel free as I am sure the vast preponderance of historical data will make it easy to pick apart your position.I'm not. The rational case for heterosexuals-only marriage rights does not exist.Then you have far more confidence in the government to act rationally that I do... :P
I don't think so. We as a body of educated adults could do so however I think it would be beyond the scope of this board and possibly beyond the capacity of the host server to handle all the traffic it could generate.
I just have to comment of Court fools previous thread of "just cause somethings traditional dosn't make it right" all I can say to that is well said sir, and bravo.
|
|
I did say quasi-religious. marriage is half religious institution and half social.
I visit people all the time in hospitals Im not married to. Are you referring specifically to pulling partners off life support or Making medical decisions about them when the cannot themselves? A Living Will
can be made up that will instruct what you want done with your medical treatment in the event you cannot make that decision yourself. You can visit terminally ill people in the hospital. I a friend dying of AIDS up until he died.Survivor benefits.....all about the money.
don't get me wrong: I think people should be able to marry whomever they want. I think its wrong that marriage is "controlled" by religious and social political nut jobs. But people are seriously fooling themselves if they don't believe that marriage "rights" are about money. If you love someone who needs a silly piece of paper to prove it?
Oh yeah! You do if you want to save some money. Here is how marriage was defined in Rome:
Marriage in ancient Rome had mythical beginnings, starting with the abduction of the Sabine Women. Romulus and his band of male immigrants were rejected conubium, the legal right to intermarriage, from the Sabines. According to Livy, Romulus and his men abduct the Sabine maidens, but promise them an honorable marriage, in which they will enjoy the benefits of property, citizenship, and children. These three things seem to define the purpose of marriage in ancient Rome.
The word matrimonium, the root for our own word for marriage, matrimony, defines the institution's main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking to woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.
Consortium is a word used for the sharing of property, usually used in a technical sense for the property held by heirs, but could also be used in...
Frankly I`d take your argument more seriously had not my uncle lost his life partner of 35 years, last year. He wasn`t allowed to see him in the hospital, and the home they built together was seized by his legal next of kin his sister. He is now miserable lonely and in a strange apartment with his little dogs. Also I`m married to my HUSBAND, and I married him for a quite a few reasons, one I love him, and because I live a beautifully free country called Canada, I could make the highest social contract with him, second we are moving out of the country next year, moving to the UK and since he is a dual UK/Canadian citizen, it allows me to immigrate with him. Thirdly my family (other than one or two gems) has turned out to be nothing more than a nest of hateful, regressive, ignorant bigots who don't deserve me and I took his name, he is my family. Educate yourself please.
|
stuff
A living will is generally used when you want someone other than your next of kin to make medical decisions in the event that you are incapacitated. Additionally, it can be used to specifically outline what you want done in the case of perm veg state, coma, etc. The problem is that they either don't always come to light in time (Gary Coleman's ex-wife pulling the plug on him earlin in violation of his living will) or they can be contested. Gay people with über-religious folks can have their partner prevented from being at their side in the hospital because their parents are the "true" NOK.
The problem with the whole money angle is that straight people don't even have to go get married to get these benefits. In most states if you live w/ a man/woman with whom you are in a relationship over a certain period of time you become common-law man and wife, even to the point of having to divorce if you decide to split IIRC. That means property sharing, taxes, etc.
There is also the issue of insurance to think about. Typically, only 1/2 of a couple gets health insurance if both have access because they can cover the other under their policy. Some forward thinking companies have extended this to include SSPs, but it's not guaranteed. In fact, my wife and I were considering not getting married until there was equal access for all, but couldn't due to insurance, taxes, custody, etc.
The system as it is now strongly incentivizes officializing long-term relationships. The problem w/ CUs is that not all of those incentives are there, they get "essentially" the same thing, except not at all.