Lack of option: I support removal of legal privilages and obligations of marriage and replacing them with ability to designating one or more close persons that get certain (but not all) rights currently possessed by spouses.Yeah sure that sounds great...but in the meantime....
That's why I voted support.
|
Feh, I've stated my preference for Fred, so I fit in the 'neither' catagory mentioned above.
Bugleyman, why do you support 10 year olds in California getting married?
Matthew,
I must be missing something as I don't think Bugley has even suggested he'd support 10 year olds getting married, in California or elsewhere. Could you elaborate on that point?Assuming I'm not missing something, which I hope I am, I really thought you were above equating paedophillia and homosexuality. [EDIT] Yup, was missing something and overassuming. Apologies, Matthew.
I support marriage equality (or gay marriage or whatever you want to call it) but Fred would be acceptable, as long as all civil marriages were renamed Fred (which is why it's a non-starter in reality, as we both know).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's an amusing argument I've found when someone says 'the majority cannot take rights away from the minority.'
Age of consent in California was raised from 10, to 13, then the current age. So using Bugley's statement, he supports 10 year olds getting married because 'the majority took their rights away'.
(I did a bit of research after the 9th circus' silliness and realized that they opened a can of worms if their ruling is upheld. Machine guns for everyone! Have a still in your back yard!)
Edit: I don't equate paedophelia with homosexuality (unless you want to call them both deviant behaviour, and both can be 'legitimized' through the law). I have pointed out that people condemning the FRC for equating the two need to stop touting Harry Hay as a 'father of the American Gay Rights movement' as that just lends credibility to their argument.
I'm pro equality between consenting adults, so yea.
Absolutely no personal bias in your vote whatsoever, right TCG? ;)
It's an amusing argument I've found when someone says 'the majority cannot take rights away from the minority.'
I reread Bugley's posts in this thread until I noticed that and then got what you meant (in general as I hadn't knew about California age of consent changes).
Age of consent in California was raised from 10, to 13, then the current age. So using Bugley's statement, he supports 10 year olds getting married because 'the majority took their rights away'.
(I did a bit of research after the 9th circus' silliness and realized that they opened a can of worms if their ruling is upheld. Machine guns for everyone! Have a still in your back yard!)
Could you please elaborate? Either in spoiler or in another thread? That sounds interesting.
|
|
Matthew,
Thank you for clearing that up. It did seem an acharacteristic comment, which is why I wanted clarification.
Also, the majority absolutely can take the rights away from the minority. That's why people like me, and presumably Bugley, argue against it when there isn't what we see as a good justification for it. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should, after all.
Also edited my first response in light of your answer.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Drekj
As I understand the 9th circus' arguments (again IANAL) they said that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because California briefly had SSM (through another court decision) and the state could not take away rights that had been granted.*
Assuming this holds, it invalidates a lot of laws.
California restricts firearms, they can't do that, since they were once legal.
It is state (and federal) laws that created the ATF, at one point it was legal to make your own alcohol, so those laws must be unconstitutional, etc etc.
Now the problem with 'for a good reason' is that who defines what a good reason is. People who oppose changing the definition of marriage (like me) or people who propose no form of legal recognition (farther than I go) feel they have 'good reasons'. Others may disagree.
I'm cynical enough to understand that a government can do anything its people allow it to. The government can legitimize same sex marriage, poly marriage, allow me to adopt my chihuahua as a child and get him on my insurance etc etc.
Heck, I voted for Ohio's current DOMA, because I felt the matter needed to be removed from courts. I also applauded Connecticut for doing SSM the 'right way' (IMNSHO) even though I prefer Fred. (People who have friended me on Facebook can look through some of my writings on the topic, including a conservative arguement for same sex marriage.)
I'm also a believer in being responsible for raising my (hypothetical) kids. I don't care if the state declares the age of consent 10 years old. Some guy touches my 12 year old niece, well there are acidic lakes in Perry County where you can dump a body and it will never be found.
*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Protect the sanctity of marriage, ban celebrity weddings!
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I think it was Ben Franklin who, when explaining the difference between a Democracy and a Republic said:
"Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner."
Or something to that effect...
I honestly don't see what the BFD is with same sex marriage. Bruce and Steve getting married doesn't infringe on my rights, any more than Bruce and Linda getting married. So why not allow it?
Honestly, most of the arguments against have been used before.
In the Fifties.
When interracial marriage was illegal.
I am for gay marriage FOR NOW.
In the future I would like to see marriage abolished as a legal structure.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Honestly, most of the arguments against have been used before.
In the Fifties.
When interracial marriage was illegal.
Geshko,
One frequent argument I hear/make is that a gay man has the same right and ability to marry as a straight man. Thus it's not discriminatory.
Loving v Virginia was decided because a black man didn't have the same right and ability as a white man, thus it was discriminatory.
Aside, the same justices that decided Loving decided Baker 9-0
It was noted that the poll might be one sided because people could be afraid to support unpopular views. I doubt that is the reason.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah. You hear that. It's a stupid argument. Possibly valid in a narrow legalistic sense, but still stupid.Honestly, most of the arguments against have been used before.
In the Fifties.
When interracial marriage was illegal.Geshko,
One frequent argument I hear/make is that a gay man has the same right and ability to marry as a straight man. Thus it's not discriminatory.
Loving v Virginia was decided because a black man didn't have the same right and ability as a white man, thus it was discriminatory.
Aside, the same justices that decided Loving decided Baker 9-0
Ah yes, the 'valid but stupid' rebuttal. Brilliant discection of it there.
Yes, I support it. Why would I want to stand in the way of other people's happiness when it has no impact on me whatsoever.
Do you honestly believe the Supremes are going to change the definition of marriage
I misread this. Hee hee!
But it's as good an entry point as any:
I would like to see the civil institution of marriage abolished [fistbumps Comrade Computer] and the family as an economic unit of child-rearing replaced. Looking around my neighborhood and at the people I work with, we're halfway there anyway.
Until then, yes, without a doubt, homosexual couples should be able to enjoy the same legal rights as their straight siblings. If CJ and his coreligionists want to practice the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony between breeders only at their private club, I could care less. No snark intended.
I was, uh, also wondering, Miss Toenibbler, if you were, uh, free this evening? I've got, uh, tickets to the Diana Ross show tonight.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Paul, you missed my post above apparently.
I'm cynical enough to understand that a government can do anything its people allow it to. The government can legitimize same sex marriage, poly marriage, allow me to adopt my chihuahua as a child and get him on my insurance etc etc.
Donna and I didn't get married because we didn't feel our relationship rose to the spiritual definition of marriage. If you want to change the status quo, go for it. You won't be able to stop relationships from forming. Dan Blatt wrote a nice post on that topic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Outside of that narrow legal perspective, saying you're not being discriminated against because you can marry any of this class of people you aren't interested in, but none of the ones you might be is a stupid argument.
Why Jeff, I didn't know you supported NAMBLA.
What? You don't? I'm sure you don't. But they'd say that you're saying that "you can marry any of this class of people you aren't interested in, but none of the ones you might be is a stupid argument."
I'm saying the state has set requirements to be met before your contract is recognized by the state. The people (through their representatives) have the power to do so. Those requirements apply to everyone. You want to change them, fine, more power to you. I'll support you lobbying, getting it on the ballot, etc. Even if I disagree with the issue (again, I have a post on FB about just this). But don't claim you're being discriminated against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bugleyman, why do you support 10 year olds in California getting married?
Anyone who lives in California deserves any happiness they can find... ;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew,
And isn't it nice to have the ability to choose when and if you get married, rather than be denied through force of law?
I was just pointing out that the legal argument you were defending, and which you said wasn't discriminatory, darn well seems like discrimination when you're the one on the receiving end of it.
Besides, your last point kinda applies in reverse, too. Even if you don't legalise same sex marriage, you won't be able to stop relationships from forming.
Trying to give a (slightly) nuanced view on the interwebz again Jeff? Why don't you just write a book or something? :P
It's an amusing argument I've found when someone says 'the majority cannot take rights away from the minority.'
Age of consent in California was raised from 10, to 13, then the current age. So using Bugley's statement, he supports 10 year olds getting married because 'the majority took their rights away'.
Wow, you're serious? I thought you were joking(!)
Children (obviously) don't have the same rights or responsibilities as adults. They can't consent to a sexual relationship, and they require our protection.
Please don't be deliberately obtuse -- you're better than that.
Honestly, most of the arguments against have been used before.
In the Fifties.
When interracial marriage was illegal.Geshko,
One frequent argument I hear/make is that a gay man has the same right and ability to marry as a straight man. Thus it's not discriminatory.
Straight man has the right to marry consenting adult person he is sexually attracted to.
Gay man does not have the right to marry consenting adult person he is sexually attracted to.
Because sexual attraction and intimacy plays important role in marriage (not necessarily the most important but important never the less) then it can be seriously considered that their rights to marriage are not equal. Gay man is in disadvantageous situation when it comes to marriage when compared to straight man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not one of those guys who equates homosexuality with child-rape, but, YOU'RE ALL PEDOPHILES!!!
I'm not one of those guys who equates homosexuality with child-rape, but, YOU'RE ALL PEDOPHILES!!!
When is your species reaching biological adulthood and what is your species traditional age of consent?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matthew,
And isn't it nice to have the ability to choose when and if you get married, rather than be denied through force of law?I was just pointing out that the legal argument you were defending, and which you said wasn't discriminatory, darn well seems like discrimination when you're the one on the receiving end of it.
Besides, your last point kinda applies in reverse, too. Even if you don't legalise same sex marriage, you won't be able to stop relationships from forming.
Oh, I know. my roommates are a (mostly) happily involved couple*, I work with a poly family, I stood as 'best man' at my mom and her partner's commitment ceremony, etc. I do believe with the tolerance** of homosexuality in this country, something should be set up. California's DP, 'Fred'. Connecticut's vote, etc. I personally believe that 'marriage' has had a definition in Western Civilization, and shouldn't be changed.
Laws aren't 'good' or 'bad'. They should be just and applied fairly.***
*
**
***
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
It's an amusing argument I've found when someone says 'the majority cannot take rights away from the minority.'
Age of consent in California was raised from 10, to 13, then the current age. So using Bugley's statement, he supports 10 year olds getting married because 'the majority took their rights away'.
Wow, you're serious? I thought you were joking(!)
Children obviously don't have the same rights or responsibilities as adults. Please don't be deliberately obtuse -- you're better than that.
Bugley,
Point is at one point, 10 year olds had the 'right' to consent. The Majority (which you say can't take rights away from the minority) decided they shouldn't have 'the same rights or responsibilities as adults'. To be consistant with your statement, taking their rights away (or if you prefer theJeff's interpretation, taking the rights of their parents to send them off to get married) thus has to be wrong.
I support it. Honestly, I could argue, but I don't care to. Nothing I could say would change any one of your minds regarding this matter. You've already thought it out quite well, as have I. You're allowed to have your opinions, too.
I'm not one of those guys who equates homosexuality with child-rape, but, YOU'RE ALL PEDOPHILES!!!
When is your species reaching biological adulthood and what is your species traditional age of consent?
Dude, have you read the ARG entry about goblin children? The goblin kennels make for a far better life, whether the residents consent or not.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Honestly, most of the arguments against have been used before.
In the Fifties.
When interracial marriage was illegal.Geshko,
One frequent argument I hear/make is that a gay man has the same right and ability to marry as a straight man. Thus it's not discriminatory.
Straight man has the right to marry consenting adult person he is sexually attracted to.
Gay man does not have the right to marry consenting adult person he is sexually attracted to.
Because sexual attraction and intimacy plays important role in marriage (not necessarily the most important but important never the less) then it can be seriously considered that their rights to marriage are not equal. Gay man is in disadvantageous situation when it comes to marriage when compared to straight man.
Straight man can't marry straight man. So still no discrimination.
@theJeff, nope, discriminating on race is different. Saying a black man can't marry a white woman disinfranchises the black man in the way it doesn't the white man. Saying that a man can't marry a man, or multiple women doesn't deny the man the same access any other man can.
You can feel it's wrong, you can't say it discriminates.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally believe that 'marriage' has had a definition in Western Civilization, and shouldn't be changed.
Contract between two families that regulates inheritance and is usually made to seal alliances/end feuds/fuse possessions/secure the elderhood of the married couple's parents on one or the other side?
|
|
Matthew,
Yes, it does. And it did in the 50s, too. the definition then said it had to be between members of the same race. That was discriminatory. This is likewise discrminatory.
Also, about laws being just and fair, why aren't you on this side of the argument again? THose are our buzzwords!!! You get 'tradtional'. ;-)
If Fred is the same legally as marriage, it's senantic sophistry to call it something else. If not, it's still not equality. And I don't see either of those as acceptable choices.
Bugley,
Point is at one point, 10 year olds had the 'right' to consent. The Majority (which you say can't take rights away from the minority) decided they shouldn't have 'the same rights or responsibilities as adults'. To be consistant with your statement, taking their rights away (or if you prefer theJeff's interpretation, taking the rights of their parents to send them off to get married) thus has to be wrong.
Oh good grief.
Here's the wiki on Tyranny of the majority. If you have any interest in what I'm actually saying, please take a look at it.
Alternatively, feel free to continue the pedantic mental contortions without me. :)
Straight man can't marry straight man. So still no discrimination.Straight man has the right to marry consenting adult person he is sexually attracted to.
Gay man does not have the right to marry consenting adult person he is sexually attracted to.
Because sexual attraction and intimacy plays important role in marriage (not necessarily the most important but important never the less) then it can be seriously considered that their rights to marriage are not equal. Gay man is in disadvantageous situation when it comes to marriage when compared to straight man.
I am sorry but please reread what I wrote once again slowly, you just repeated your argument instead of answering to mine counter argument.
Your answer fails to cope with the following inequality:
Straight man has no interest in marrying another man so the legal inability to do so means nothing to him. He has sexual interest in marrying woman. He is allowed to do that.
Gay man has no interest in marrying another woman which he is allowed to do so. He is forbidden from marrying another man that he desires.
Straight and gay man have different wants (or needs depending upon how we view on ability to make such family commitments) so the discrimination is that one of them can satisfy his marital wants/needs while the other is denied that.
Also, it can be constructed as discrimination between genders because male can marry female while female cannot (and vice versa, female can marry male while male cannot do the same).
Dude, have you read the ARG entry about goblin children? The goblin kennels make for a far better life, whether the residents consent or not.
Lies and more lies.
But in answer to your question, Comrade Drejk, goblin boys are born with sizable erections.
With which to do it in the streets!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matthew,
Yes, it does. And it did in the 50s, too. the definition then said it had to be between members of the same race. That was discriminatory. This is likewise discrminatory.Also, about laws being just and fair, why aren't you on this side of the argument again? THose are our buzzwords!!! You get 'tradtional'. ;-)
If Fred is the same legally as marriage, it's senantic sophistry to call it something else. If not, it's still not equality. And I don't see either of those as acceptable choices.
I try to view laws themselves as lawful neutral. That means laws can be wrong (smoking bans) stupid (anti-sodomy laws) and impossible (Prohibition). It doesn't make them unlawful. :P
Fred is not the same as marriage. If Marriage uses the 'traditional/generally accepted' definition of 'one man and one woman' and Fred uses 'two men or two women' it is by definition different. (possible legal loophole, could you be married and fredded at the same time?). I also see it as a simple answer to the polygamy/child slippery slope bandied about. "You want to be able to 'fred' a 10 year old? Knock youself out. Lobbying to get government recognition worked for us."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew,
And a marriage between a same race couple and a mixed race couple is also different, or so people used to think with as much conviction as you aplly to homosexual marriages. Separate but equal was a lousy idea when it was applied to race, it's still a lousy idea when it's applied to sexuality. If it needs to be differentiated, it's not equal.
So, I repeat, semantic sophistry if they have the same rights, discimintion if they don't. Pick your poison.
Dude, have you read the ARG entry about goblin children? The goblin kennels make for a far better life, whether the residents consent or not.Lies and more lies.
But in answer to your question, Comrade Drejk, goblin boys are born with sizable erections.
With which to do it in the streets!
Look, Doodlebug:
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Drejk,
It's not discimination because it's the same access.
To use another (biological) example. I'm left handed.* It is more dangerous for me to drive than for a right handed person, because my left arm is stronger. If I jerk the car in a stress situation, I am more likely to veer into traffic. Is that discriminatory that my driving is riskier than a right handed person? No. We both have the same access to the road. We both pass the same tests and meet the same requirements for the government recognition (in the form of a driver's license).
Can a blind person get a drivers license? No. Why not? Are we discriminating against the blind person? How horrible! No, the blind person has to meet the same state mandated requirements that a sighted person does. That he can't meet them isn't discriminatory. Indeed, allowing him to get a license when he *can't* meet the requirements everyone else has to *is* discriminatory. Donna's drivers license said she had to wear her glasses. Is that discriminatory? No. It's saying she can (with her glasses) meet the basic requirements to get a license.
That a (gay) man can't have government recognition of his union with another male isn't discriminatory for the same reason. The relationship doesn't meet the requirements. Now you can argue the requirements should be changed. You can argue that there should be an institution for them (Fred). You want to make those arguments, more power to you.
*
