Printable View
Is any of that not present in your friendships or the family that you have already? Would any of that not be present if there were not a 2 person limit to a marriage? Is any of that guaranteed in a 2 person marriage?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Again, I ask - Why are we singling it out? Because we just have historically, why question it?
How do you know? Why do you imply this between 2 best friends? What does "really married" mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I know because it's a thought experiment and we defined it as such. It's really not hard to understand that gay people can get married in the same sense that straight people can.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Except that they are missing important components, just like 2 friends are missing important components, just like some male/female couples are missing some components, etc. Plus, I never defined that 2 best friends would get married to game the system, where are you getting that? Do you not love your friends?
What is your definition of marriage and why does it exclude such an arrangement?
Anyway, I hope SCOTUS considers these things upon appeal, because they are coming sooner rather than later and I welcome them.
I don't really understand. Presumably, there is a level of affection involved in a marriage that isn't present in friendships and family relationships.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
What is that? Is that what marriage is? Sexual affection? Is that any of the government's business?
Marriage is what it is. You either believe it has a social value or not. You either think the government should be involved in it or not. What I don't understand is how you can hold such diametrically opposing views of the institution based on gender. When it is limited to a man and a woman it is a special and valuable social institution, but if that were to be expanded to two men or two women, then it should suddenly be thrown out. I am saying that what makes marriage special is not the gender of the involved parties. It is a null variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
If you don't think government should be in the business of marriage, that is a completely legitimate position. If you've come to that position because you feel like gay marriage will somehow degrade the institution to the point of meaninglessness so it might as well be thrown out, I dispute that notion. It just seems like an intellectual temper tantrum.
And I'm asking you - what makes it special then, and why? You've given hollow and vague answers so far.
I thought it was special for a number of reasons, in particular the psycho-phyisical gender union and it's ability to raise children as reflected it the cultural-religious values of most people on the planet earth. Now that those have changed and we have started throwing those things out as a society, I wonder why we keep marriage around, but numbers suggest that we are not, in fact. Of the few people who are still getting married, more and more of them have a meaningless and fluid understanding of it based on Disney movies and the TV shows that peddle it as a business.
Over time I've realized that this society no longer values the institution and, because I value the religious institution even more, I would like to get the government out of all but the most pertinent and objective of our mutual businesses. I believe that marriage is a metaphysical union and, as such, the government has no right to be involved. Marriage is religion and, like Religion, it will be strengthened if the government gets the hell out of the business.
The rights and privelgesQuote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
But why give them to one type of human relationship over another in the first place?
If you want to completely deconstruct the thing be my guest. I just feel its eaiser to extend these rights and privelges to this subset of people instead of doing mental gymnastics which can just as eaisly be applied to a loveless/sexless heterosexual couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Because questioning our eroded institutions is a bad idea, better to simply build on top of them. I believe that marriage is like religion and it has taken this national debate for me to realize that government has no business in it. Thank you, gay marriage debate.
But it is easier, isn't it? That makes it the right way to go.
Environmentalists seems to be pessimistic about the survival of various species while those less environmentally inclined think that those species are pretty hardy. Doesn't seem strange that those most concerned about something would doubt its ability to survive.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Exactly.
And I'm asking you what gender has to do with anything you just described. I'm not sure what a psycho-physical gender union is, but I do not think our cultural values surrounding marriage would change by making it simply a psycho-physical same-gender union. The value society places on the stability of long term relationships and their benefits in raising children would remain. Our understanding of relationships can evolve without the destruction of the whole institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
If you are concerned about the meaningless and fluid nature of many contemporary marriages, that is a conversation for another thread. Conflating that problem with gay marriage confuses the issue.
That is not true. This issue is about why we should call a specific type of relationship special and then convey tax benefits onto it. A look at what the institution is - is important. It isn't a math equation of "equality" - it is an unequal institution itself, held above others. It reminds me of the fight over the crown being passed over to the eldest son -and everyone cawing about how "equal" it would be if it could also go to the eldest daughter... Why the eldest, and why the hell are people still wearing crowns and ruling other people in the first place? The fairness angle is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
I don't believe that a monogamous gay relationship is any more special than the aforementioned types of relationships and I think is opens up more questions about the failing institution of civil marriage than it solves. A grandparent aunt relationship is more special, a mother daughter relationship is more special, a best friendship is more special - to me and probably most of you. All relationships which can be and have been important in the rearing of children and the conveyance of affection. These are also usually lifelong commitments, unlike most marriages. What are we doing singling out gay couples? Why not open it up fully if we are opening it up at all. You guys have so far failed to distinguish why one relationship deserves benefits and the others don't. We've made good points that your closest loved ones should be allowed by your death bedside, why just the one you've been nailing? We all recognize that social security would be a benefit to your closest loved ones - why withhold that from the most important people in your life that you are not having sex with who could use it?
I know that you desperately want gay marriage to become legal, Panzer. I oppose it and am firm in my opposition - the arguments over the years have not convinced me because I view it as an undeserved social conveyance of benefit. I can see some agreeable point to eliminating the thing all together and keeping marriage a personal thing between 2 people, God and the society that they identify with. You get your equality and I don't have to keep calling these BS fair-weather shallow marriages, marriages - gay or straight. Win-win
Omg, this hurts my head so much. Why are monogamous, love based relationships special? Because the statistics show that children raised in foster homes do poorly compared to those in family units consisting two parents (gender does not matter here, hence why we want same sex marriages). Children of single parents statistically do worse off as well. It's better for the kids, and hence better for the country if we put incentives on strong family units.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
You get people like me and PJ in complete agreement on a subject and you wonder what kind of arguments would be brought up against us. These kind of arguments.
What do the statistics of foster homes have to do with anything and why do they relate to monogamy?
You are the one asking what the point of marriage is if gays can marry. You slap together words that make you sound crazy ("physiological-phycho" whatever) and say that because gays can marry, now suddenly your eyes are open to the pointlessness of marriage and how utterly pointless it is. Then you rant about other types of relationships and why we don't pride them, when the fact is we do put pride in our aunts and uncles and grandparents and all the relationships between our relatives. What we do not put pride in are relationships between two gay people who are not of the same family. You will not be convinced of anything because you refuse to let in anyone else to your special club and all your rambling is just poor justification for asking that a huge pillar of social stability be taken out lest we let "the others" be supported by it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
More good news: Washington Legislature passed same-sex marriage, governor has pledged to sign bill. Only obstacle left is a possible public referendum if opponents get enough signatures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us...e.html?_r=1&hp
I would submit that royal succession is not the best comparison to make to the debate over gay marriage. A more apt example would be the debate over interracial marriage, which revolved around many of the same (ultimately unfounded) criticisms. Why can't society again broaden the definition of a socially acceptable relationship without altering the definition of what a marriage entails?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Quote:
I don't believe that a monogamous gay relationship is any more special than the aforementioned types of relationships and I think is opens up more questions about the failing institution of civil marriage than it solves. A grandparent aunt relationship is more special, a mother daughter relationship is more special, a best friendship is more special - to me and probably most of you. All relationships which can be and have been important in the rearing of children and the conveyance of affection. These are also usually lifelong commitments, unlike most marriages. What are we doing singling out gay couples? Why not open it up fully if we are opening it up at all. You guys have so far failed to distinguish why one relationship deserves benefits and the others don't. We've made good points that your closest loved ones should be allowed by your death bedside, why just the one you've been nailing? We all recognize that social security would be a benefit to your closest loved ones - why withhold that from the most important people in your life that you are not having sex with who could use it?
To be honest, I had a difficult time following that paragraph. I can only say that the whole argument seems so superficial. To me, what makes marriage special and socially desirable runs much deeper than things like skin color or genitalia.
As I said earlier, removing the state from marriage entirely is a completely reasonable position in my book. It is regrettable that you reached that conclusion over an apparent disgust with the idea of gay people getting married, though.Quote:
I know that you desperately want gay marriage to become legal, Panzer. I oppose it and am firm in my opposition - the arguments over the years have not convinced me because I view it as an undeserved social conveyance of benefit. I can see some agreeable point to eliminating the thing all together and keeping marriage a personal thing between 2 people, God and the society that they identify with. You get your equality and I don't have to keep calling these BS fair-weather shallow marriages, marriages - gay or straight. Win-win
Some/many/most homosexuals want state-recognized homosexual marriage so they can have the recognition and benefits associated with heterosexual marriage applied to their homosexual relationships. The way to achieve that is to convince enough people to support them to get marriage laws changed. Polling trends indicate that it's not going to be long before they get what they want. I'm fine with that- it's the democratic process.
What I'm not fine with is pushing the issue in the courts. There is no constitutional right to marry and it's not analogous to the civil rights movement.
If they were concerned about the practical benefits of marriage they would have pushed for the civil unions which would have generated pretty much zero amount of controversy. IMHO homosexuals are involved in a pissing contest with the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I find this statement strange. In states that took steps to ban gay marriage, they also made sure to outlaw civil unions and same-sex contracts such as power of attorney. There was nothing subtle about it. If a lesbian wants to visit her long-term partner in the hospital, there is no way to do it in VA. So I'm curious to hear why you think civil unions would excite zero controversy; people who can't stomach gays don't appear to make such fine distinctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Every sane person I know supports this idea, but then, every sane person I know believes marijuana should be decriminalized and taxed. There are specific reasons elected officials won't touch these ideas, despite their self-evident sanity and prudence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Eh isnt a state recognised marraige a civil union in all cases regardless of gender or orientation.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Separate but equal, right? :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Precisely, but done right. Really separate and really equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
Don't worry guys, we will get it right this time. Just need to make sure that the government will act in perfect harmony between the two groups for all time.Man, I love it when we institutionalize the idea that our fellow Americans are different and should be treated differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Well, they refuse to be treated the same. Any unmarried man (gay or straight) can marry any consenting unmarried woman (gay or straight) at any time. The law is exactly the same for everyone but it's not good enough for the homosexuals. They want the right to elope with their gender? Fine, but *I* don't want that right. So leave marriage alone and let them have civil unions.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Then come the emotional appeals.... I'd love to see people argue homosexual marriage on the merits instead of resorting to racial comparisons. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger