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.
Which is probably the primary reason for the discussion: do we equate "traditional" definition of marriage with (a) the accepted definition of marriage and with (b) definition of marriage we want to exist in the future (or influence the future commitment options available, for those of us who prefer evolution of laws concerning social life).
Myself, I do not accept "traditional" as a valid reason for any law. I demand more feasible reason for any law that forbids some kind of activity, like causing harm to anyone beyond perpetrator of the act - thus I greatly appreciate any bans on smoking in public places where avoiding the smoke is problematic, like in public transportation, offices, public service buildings, entertainment locales beyond places for smoking - spreading carcinogen toxin to others is violation of their rights.
I haven't read the ARG.
Nor have I read Mein Kampf.
Yes, they're exactly the same.
Down with Paizo!
Vive le Galt!
That doesn't work. It's like separate and equal, only you really can't have the two. There are over 1100 rights and privileges that married couples enjoy that no other status can replicate.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.
No current status, LazarX. Rights and privileges currently possessed by married couples weren't gods-given and unsharable, they were introduced through the legal process. So they could be given to the hypothetical future designated companion status through deliberate legislature. Possibly the privileges and responsibilities could be spread between a few tiers of designated companion status to allow the family groups acquiring them to custom-tailor their relationship. I am not speaking about introducing the status right now, I am calling for considering that in longer, generational terms, as a way of evolving society to accommodate for ongoing economical, technological and biological changes.
We're not asking churches to perform weddings they can't abide, we're just asking them for basic human rights for our families.
And I am talking about providing basic human (and in the future transhuman) rights.
I haven't read the ARG.
Nor have I read Mein Kampf.
Yes, they're exactly the same.
Now I envision (un)holy goblin picture-book praising goblin superiority, domination over lesser (bigger) races and fight for goblin living space with small ugly but charismatic goblin leading the legions of goblinkind against the world.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can't take away the rights of white people to own slaves either, I suppose.
The point is not that you can never take away rights, but that you can only so for some compelling reason.
You can free the slaves, because the slaveowner's rights to own them conflict with the slave's rights.
You can raise the age of consent because the rights of adults to abuse children conflicts with the child's rights.
You can remove the rights of homosexuals to marry each other because their right to marry each other conflicts with ... ? What, exactly does it conflict with? Whose rights are being violated in a way that trumps theirs?
<big blue genie>
He *can* be taught!</big blue genie>
As Dan argued in the post I linked, there's nothing to stop two (or more) people calling themselves married. It is government recognition that we're talking about. Now who determines the 'compelling reasons'? The governed. (which currently have a 31 to 0 on the referrendum level). Could the 14th amendment be repealed? Yes. (Nancy Pelosi's come out for revoking or restricting the first amendment, for example) Will it be? I doubt it.
If it were? The court couldn't say it was Unconstitutional because it's part of the Constitution (A good example in recent history was the Hawaii SSM case. It was sent back to the lower court by the Hawaii supremes. In the interim, the people passed an ammendment defining marriage. The Supremes then ruled "Well the Constitution defines marriage, so the suit is dismissed."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Myself, I do not accept "traditional" as a valid reason for any law. I demand more feasible reason for any law that forbids some kind of activity, like causing harm to anyone beyond perpetrator of the act - thus I greatly appreciate any bans on smoking in public places where avoiding the smoke is problematic, like in public transportation, offices, public service buildings, entertainment locales beyond places for smoking - spreading carcinogen toxin to others is violation of their rights.
Going kind of off topic, I disagree with you on smoking.
(full disclosure, I don't smoke. The girls do and I make them go outside).A restaurant/business owner should be allowed to set rules in his/her property. If I run "Matt's pub and bar." I should be allowed to set the smoking policy. I'm not making anyone enter against their will, nor am I forcing anyone to stay. Smoking is (currently)* a legal activity, and if I feel it benefits my business to allow it in my place, I should be able to.
Amusingly you see the opposite for firearms, for the reasons I should be allowed to have smokers. Ohio is a Conceal Carry state, but businesses can restrict firearms in their premises. It's not infringing on the gun owner's rights, since he's not forced to go in.
*
|
I use to support gay marriage until gays started sueing churches because they wanted to get married in a place that's beliefs went against theirs. I will support gay marriage if churches get protect from civil suits.
I support Civil Unions. It gives the equal right under the law as marriage in most states. Which is what gays want right?
If it's more about taking down religions and other instuitions that don't believe gay marriage then I want to see equal protests against all religions not just christians.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.
Paul,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. There are differences between two men and two women that aren't there between black men and white men marrying women. (Well unless you're Robert Byrd) And I don't see the analogy.
No... that's utter BS. I don't believe we should wait until the Fourth Millennium to get rights that were codified in the Second.
Maybe I presented it unclearly - I say about updating the law step by step as required by evolution of society, technology and changes it brings to humanity. Not waiting until all is finished because it would possibly never codified before end of human race or end of need for laws as such.
But that's okay, In every instance where we've made progress on human rights, it never happened by waiting for those of you who won't change their minds to do so. We will push and continue to push as long as it takes. We will keep this issue...
Exactly what I had in mind.
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.
Paul,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. There are differences between two men and two women that aren't there between black men and white men marrying women. (Well unless you're Robert Byrd) And I don't see the analogy.
Can I ask what you think those differences are?
Personally, I don't think a faith that discriminates (loaded word, I know, but I'm speaking of the recognize a distinction/differentiate type) homosexuals from heterosexuals should be required to perform gay marriages, but I do think that civil marriages performed by state officials should be open to same sex couples. There are differences between a civil marriage and a civil union, and same sex couples deserve to be married IMO.
I use to support gay marriage until gays started sueing churches because they wanted to get married in a place that's beliefs went against theirs. I will support gay marriage if churches get protect from civil suits.
I support Civil Unions. It gives the equal right under the law as marriage in most states. Which is what gays want right?
If it's more about taking down religions and other instuitions that don't believe gay marriage then I want to see equal protests against all religions not just christians.
Links please. And to actual news stories of the suits, not to anti-marriage sites warning about them or claiming they're being flooded with suits. Preferably with the church actually losing.
Now, anyone can file suit for anything, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen. It hardly counts if the suit is dismissed at the first hearing.
I've heard lots of fear-mongering on this topic, but no actual cases.
I seem to remember a case brought by a same sex couple who wanted to be married in a community center, run by a church that barred same sex marriage, in one of the states where full on marriage is guaranteed to same sex couples. The pertinent bit being, the community center had previously performed marriages for hetero couples who would not have been welcome in their church (atheists, divorcees, etc), and so denying a same sex couple was discrimination on the basis of of sexual preference.
Yes, it sounds terribly nit-pickey, but that's litigation, baby!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I use to support gay marriage until gays started sueing churches because they wanted to get married in a place that's beliefs went against theirs. I will support gay marriage if churches get protect from civil suits.
I support Civil Unions. It gives the equal right under the law as marriage in most states. Which is what gays want right?
If it's more about taking down religions and other instuitions that don't believe gay marriage then I want to see equal protests against all religions not just christians.
Links please. And to actual news stories of the suits, not to anti-marriage sites warning about them or claiming they're being flooded with suits. Preferably with the church actually losing.
Now, anyone can file suit for anything, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen. It hardly counts if the suit is dismissed at the first hearing.
I've heard lots of fear-mongering on this topic, but no actual cases.
TheJeff
court case where a photographer lost after being sued.Catholic hosptial sued because they don't like their policy.
Another one.
(Disclaimer on the second link. I work for an insurance company (not that one) and we have same and opposite sex DP coverage internally. IT's an option our plan sponsors can buy, like anything else. I don't speak for my employer, and damn sure they don't want me to.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Can I ask what you think those differences are?
Personally, I don't think a faith that discriminates (loaded word, I know, but I'm speaking of the recognize a distinction/differentiate type) homosexuals from heterosexuals should be required to perform gay marriages, but I do think that civil marriages performed by state officials should be open to same sex couples. There are differences between a civil marriage and a civil union, and same sex couple deserve to be married IMO.
Well ignoring the simple "Because it's two people of the same sex" there is the "generally able to procreate w/o help" aspect*, as well as the studies showing that hererosexual couples are the most** stable social unit.
*
**
|
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.
Paul,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. There are differences between two men and two women that aren't there between black men and white men marrying women. (Well unless you're Robert Byrd) And I don't see the analogy.
Matthew,
No, you probably don't. However, in the 50s, it was widely believed that a mixed race marriage had a number of fundamental differences to same race marriage. NOw we look back at that and can't understand how otherwise reasonable people could possibly be so blind to the prejudice and discrimination inherent in that policy. I would suspect 50 years hence, the same attitude will apply to your views on same sex marriage: How could anyone sensible believe that? Does that make it clearer?|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Lazar,
Should a gay bar be forced to host a Nation of Islam rally?
Again Dan Blatt wrote a good post on the topic.
Though frequent commentor heliotrope is Swiftonian in his reply.
(I'm not heliotrope, I comment under The_Livewire there)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Matthew,
No, you probably don't. However, in the 50s, it was widely believed that a mixed race marriage had a number of fundamental differences to same race marriage. NOw we look back at that and can't understand how otherwise reasonable people could possibly be so blind to the prejudice and discrimination inherent in that policy. I would suspect 50 years hence, the same attitude will apply to your views on same sex marriage: How could anyone sensible believe that? Does that make it clearer?
Or in 50 years, society could have swung back so far the other way that my support for 'fred' would be seen as incredibly naive and foolish.
I can't predict what society will do. *shrug* I don't lose much sleep over it. I can express my beliefs, and how they've changed from the redneck teenager I was 25 years ago, and will likely change if I make it to 65.
If I remember correctly it was Ed Brubaker (whom I disagree with on political issues, but is a good storyteller) who wrote Captain America saying this.
Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."
That's all I can do.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not one of those was about church being forced to perform a same-sex marriage.I use to support gay marriage until gays started sueing churches because they wanted to get married in a place that's beliefs went against theirs. I will support gay marriage if churches get protect from civil suits.
I support Civil Unions. It gives the equal right under the law as marriage in most states. Which is what gays want right?
If it's more about taking down religions and other instuitions that don't believe gay marriage then I want to see equal protests against all religions not just christians.
Links please. And to actual news stories of the suits, not to anti-marriage sites warning about them or claiming they're being flooded with suits. Preferably with the church actually losing.
Now, anyone can file suit for anything, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen. It hardly counts if the suit is dismissed at the first hearing.
I've heard lots of fear-mongering on this topic, but no actual cases.
TheJeff
court case where a photographer lost after being sued.
Catholic hosptial sued because they don't like their policy.
Another one.
Third link is about a place being forced to host against their beliefs. I belive that fits "a place that's beliefs went against theirs."
Personally, I believe in free association. I don't want to let a skinhead sleep over at my place. I lived in an apartment where part of the lease was no alcohol on the premises (owners were Mormon). If I am told that a Chinese Buffett doesn't want me because a) I look like I'd eat them out of business and b) Lefties are unlucky, they should have the right to do that, just like I've the right to tell others about it, and go somewhere else.
Oh and let's not forget when Canada decided The right to not be offended is greater than the right of free speech. (As I've said about our hosts here. I have a right to state my beliefs, I don't have a right to their microphone.)
|
|
Matthew,
No, you probably don't. However, in the 50s, it was widely believed that a mixed race marriage had a number of fundamental differences to same race marriage. NOw we look back at that and can't understand how otherwise reasonable people could possibly be so blind to the prejudice and discrimination inherent in that policy. I would suspect 50 years hence, the same attitude will apply to your views on same sex marriage: How could anyone sensible believe that? Does that make it clearer?Or in 50 years, society could have swung back so far the other way that my support for 'fred' would be seen as incredibly naive and foolish.
I can't predict what society will do. *shrug* I don't lose much sleep over it. I can express my beliefs, and how they've changed from the redneck teenager I was 25 years ago, and will likely change if I make it to 65.
If I remember correctly it was Ed Brubaker (whom I disagree with on political issues, but is a good storyteller) who wrote Captain America saying this.
Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."That's all I can do.
Matt,
And coincidentally, I think I'm doing exactly the same thing. And that is a very good quote. So, which of us moves first?|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."Matt,
And coincidentally, I think I'm doing exactly the same thing. And that is a very good quote. So, which of us moves first?
I should have added, "And I expect no less of others."
Who moves first? *shrug* In some ways I've already conceeded defeat. I alone can't stop the definition of marriage being changed, but it doesn't mean I don't stop disagreeing with it. Likewise, I don't expect you to ever abandon your points unless you decide/realize you're wrong.*
The issue is lost when one side (or the other) uses the force of government to stop advocating. Like I said, I voted for Ohio's DOMA** but would sign a petition to put the issue back on the ballot even if I disagree with the language because the people should define how they're going to resolve the cultural change. (And banning it being legally recognized is a solution, if not one people look forward to.) Right now, the proposal being kicked around redefines marriage (which I oppose). I'd have no qualms working with SSM advocates as far as 'Fred' but no farther. I'm open about that.
When the government tells me I can't advocate my position, that's a line too far.***
*
**
***
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
