Get Rid of All Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]kamui wrote:
i support giving some privilege to people who make the choice and the sacrifice required to become members of a fundamental social institution.

People who choose to not become members doesn’t qualify.
People who are born in such a way they can’t become members of this institution doesn’t qualify.

I’m “polyamorous” ( even if i don’t like this term).
As such, I don’t qualify.
And for this reason, i won’t marry.
It doesn’t matter if i’m “born that way” or if it’s my choice. It’s probably both, and it’s ultimately irrelevant.
In any case : i don’t qualify.
[/quote]

I don’t qualify would have been one way to look at blacks and whites in different schools.

I don’t qualify would have been one way to look at keeping blacks and whites from being married.

I don’t qualify would have been a way to look at women not being allowed to vote.

I don’t qualify works for you. I don’t qualify bothers me and a majority of the rest of the people in this country now.

You don’t have to get married if you don’t want to and you view yourself as not qualifying. Some gay people will not get married even if it is legalized just as some long time heterosexual couples do not.

We are arguing it is time to change that lack of qualification. We have done it before and are about to do it again.

And you don’t need to play if you don’t want to.

And guess what that fundamental social institution is better off in the places where gay marriage is legal. If it was horrific for heterosexual marriage why is the divorce rate lower in states allowing gay marriage? The lowest divorce rate in the country is found in the state that first allowed gay marriage.

Gay people aren’t hurting this “fundamental social institution.” In fact my fiance and when talking about our future as a married couple have never had the conversation of how a gay couple can harm us. We don’t live in fear of gay marriage.

462

[quote]
I don’t qualify would have been one way to look at keeping blacks and whites from being married.[/quote]

At one time, we had to decide if the institution of marriage is a racial one, or a social one.
We decided the latter.

Now, we are asked to decide if marriage is a social institution, or an individual one.
Except that an “individual institution” is an absurdity by definition.

Make it an individual contract if you want, abolish the institution if you want, but selectively extending a privilege for the sake of “anti-discrimination” is absurd.

[quote]
I don’t qualify would have been a way to look at women not being allowed to vote.[/quote]

Yes. And we still do exactly that with non-citizens.
Another awful discrimination.

[quote]And guess what that fundamental social institution is better off in the places where gay marriage is legal. If it was horrific for heterosexual marriage why is the divorce rate lower in states allowing gay marriage? The lowest divorce rate in the country is found in the state that first allowed gay marriage.

Gay people aren’t hurting this “fundamental social institution.” In fact my fiance and when talking about our future as a married couple have never had the conversation of how a gay couple can harm us. We don’t live in fear of gay marriage.[/quote]

The point of this institution is to establish the smallest reproductive unit as a social model.

If gay marriage is recognized, this point is moot, and marriage is no more an institution at all.

It’s not “hurt”, it’s over.
And this has nothing to do with fear : it’s an obvious, immediate, actual consequence, and you would know it if you knew what an institution is.

463

[quote]kamui wrote:

[quote]
I don’t qualify would have been one way to look at keeping blacks and whites from being married.[/quote]

At one time, we had to decide if the institution of marriage is a racial one, or a social one.
We decided the latter.

Now, we are asked to decide if marriage is a social institution, or an individual one.
Except that an “individual institution” is an absurdity by definition.

Make it an individual contract if you want, abolish the institution if you want, but selectively extending a privilege for the sake of “anti-discrimination” is absurd.

This is pure emotional nonsense k. Blacks and whites marrying was thought to be bad for marriage. Marriage survived. Marriage will be an institution as long as the state gives people benefits based off of whether or not they are married.

It changes absolutely nothing for everyone.

Please explain to me how granting a gay person the privilege to marry another gay person ends the institution for me and my fiance.

Please tell me how marriage is not over in the states where gay marriage has been legalized. You can STILL do everything you could before as a heterosexual man.

Your arguments are ALREADY proven wrong and yet you continue to make them?

464

The marriage part goes far beyond. It is not simply marriage that gay people care about, but the privileges that come with marriage. Gay people don’t understand why if they love one another they have such a hard time earning “family” hospital visit time. You can do that when you’re married. Sometimes you can’t when your gay.

Now why in the “holy” fuck would ANYONE be against denying a loving gay couple the right to see each other in the hospital should one of them be critically injured?

So those privileges are no big deal for people as long as you are not born attracted to someone who has the same genitals as you is the current societal message.

You can’t have those privileges because it would RUIN everything for everyone else if we let gay people do it. I feel like it would be hard to type some of those things out with a straight face.

“We don’t want to get rid of special privileges for certain people from the government. We just want to make sure only heterosexual people get those privileges.”

That right there is the absolute point of every anti-gay marriage person in this entire world.

465

[quote]
This is pure emotional nonsense k.[/quote]

If this is “pure emotional nonsense”, i have to ask you : which emotion is involved ?

[quote]
Blacks and whites marrying was thought to be bad for marriage. Marriage survived.[/quote]

Nope. Marriage as a racial institution died. Marriage as a social institution strengthened.

[quote]
Marriage will be an institution as long as the state gives people benefits based off of whether or not they are married.[/quote]

Marriage being an institution has nothing to do with people recieving benefits.

[quote]It changes absolutely nothing for everyone.

Please explain to me how granting a gay person the privilege to marry another gay person ends the institution for me and my fiance.

Please tell me how marriage is not over in the states where gay marriage has been legalized. You can STILL do everything you could before as a heterosexual man.[/quote]

Being married means “being recognized by the society/the State, as part of a specific social model”.

that’s what “a social institution” means. It’s not about the benefits, it’s not about the specifics of an union, it’s about being officially recognized as a model.

Where gay marriage is allowed, an heterosexual man can not be part of this specific social model anymore. Because this specific social model is not recognized by society/the State anymore.

You can still “marry”, but marriage is not an institution anymore, and it is (or at least it should be) the whole point of marriage.

[quote]
Marriage CHANGING when we allowed blacks to marry whites didn’t end it and this won’t either. Won’t stop you and the other chicken littles from claiming it. Paranoia is a hallmark of those who are opposed to allowing people to make their own decisions free from government control. [/quote]

It has nothing to do with fear and paranoia.
I would say the exact same thing if i where against the model of heterosexual monogamous marriage.
And ironically enough, in a way, i am.

466

[quote]
Now why in the “holy” fuck would ANYONE be against denying a loving gay couple the right to see each other in the hospital should one of them be critically injured?[/quote]

This right to see each onther in the hospital shouldn’t require a change of law.
Only a change of policy, and a bit of human decency.

467

I’m not here to pile on. A little busy today for that, anyways. But Kamui you’re nailing it on the head.

H factor, the last situation, if there actually isn’t a legal arrangement, could be potentially dealt with outside of marriage.

For instance, a best friend might say “why can the homosexual get hospital privileges, and me and my best friend can’t arrange the same? Neither of us are interested in marriage, or are close to our respective family.”

And yes, I can compare the two relationships. I would be a “bigot” if I claimed a romantic homosexual arrangement deserved hospital visits and best-friendships didn’t…

Homework time!

468

[quote]kamui wrote:

Where gay marriage is allowed, an heterosexual man can not be part of this specific social model anymore. Because this specific social model is not recognized by society/the State anymore.

You can still “marry”, but marriage is not an institution anymore, and it is (or at least it should be) the whole point of marriage.

[/quote]

Allowing gays, in addition to heterosexuals, to marry–how does this push marriage out of the category of an “institution.” What about the word “institution” precludes it from being applied to gay couples as well as straight ones?

If an institution is a recognized model, then the above simply expands the model.

And, by the way, surely a heterosexual married couple is not a good model for a gay kid. Unless some lucky lady out there wants to be married to a guy who is blowing dudes on his way home from work, not committed to the relationship, and perpetually unhappy.

469

Currently, the “message” of marriage is : “our society prefer heterosexual monogamous relationships, because these relationships are the most socially useful”

if gay marriage is recognized, this message becomes : “our society prefer monogamous relationships, because these relationships are the most socially useful”.

Granted, this is still some kind of institution. A mere institution of monogamy. An unenforced and unenforceable one.

And this “institution” will be every bit as vulnerable to the “anti-discrimation” arguments than our current definition of marriage is.

[quote]
If an institution is a recognized model, then the above simply expands the model.[/quote]

Nope. It redefines it. Retro-actively.

470

[quote]kamui wrote:

Decency such as this:

Notice WHEN this legislation started being proposed. The moment gay marriage started winning the war of public opinion. The moment treating of gay individuals started bordering on equal it was time to figure some of this out.

Now, Kansas Republicans are claiming it is all about freedom. Yet many of these people weren’t working on bills like this 8 years ago. They weren’t doing this 5 years ago. It’s only when the shocking move to allow gay people some decency started to take root all over that it became time to fight it.

If decency actually existed you probably wouldn’t see the push for gay marriage needed. It’s only because of the bigots out there who hate people for who they love (hate being the absolutely appropriate word for many of them) that we need to do these things anyways.

471

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Decency such as this:

Notice WHEN this legislation started being proposed. The moment gay marriage started winning the war of public opinion. The moment treating of gay individuals started bordering on equal it was time to figure some of this out.

Now, Kansas Republicans are claiming it is all about freedom. Yet many of these people weren’t working on bills like this 8 years ago. They weren’t doing this 5 years ago. It’s only when the shocking move to allow gay people some decency started to take root all over that it became time to fight it.

If decency actually existed you probably wouldn’t see the push for gay marriage needed. It’s only because of the bigots out there who hate people for who they love (hate being the absolutely appropriate word for many of them) that we need to do these things anyways. [/quote]

So, it’s about government control after all.
And it’s about pushing societal changes by force and legal means.

The sad thing is, it won’t work.

472

[quote]kamui wrote:

Currently, the “message” of marriage is : “our society prefer heterosexual monogamous relationships, because these relationships are the most socially useful”

if gay marriage is recognized, this message becomes : “our society prefer monogamous relationships, because these relationships are the most socially useful”.

Granted, this is still some kind of institution. A mere institution of monogamy. An unenforced and unenforceable one.

And this “institution” will be every bit as vulnerable to the “anti-discrimation” arguments than our current definition of marriage is.

Then black and white marriage also redefined it. You can’t attempt to play both sides. Either marriage should never be allowed to change or changing it is ok. We have changed it numerous times and survived and now you’re coming out of the woodwork to say this change will kill it. (Despite the direct evidence to the health of heterosexual marriage in the state where people could first get married as gay).

473

[quote]kamui wrote:

So, it’s about government control after all.
And it’s about pushing societal changes by force and legal means.

The sad thing is, it won’t work.
[/quote]

Yes, government control is you deciding you have a problem with the below:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

You are supporting government control and denying the will of the people which is drastically moving in a direction away from what you are proposing.

474

[quote]kamui wrote:

Currently, the “message” of marriage is : “our society prefer heterosexual monogamous relationships, because these relationships are the most socially useful”

[/quote]

If that is the message, then the message is in error, because heterosexual monogamous relationships are not the most socially useful for the portion of the population that is gay. In fact, it can be considered socially detrimental for a gay guy to marry a woman.

475

Not really.
Marriage is millenia older than racialist ideologies.
If anything, Marriage resisted an attempt to redefine it on a racial basis and confirmed its social, non racial definition.

[quote]
Either marriage should never be allowed to change or changing it is ok.[/quote]

Oh, it could certainly be changed if there was a good reason to change it.
I’m still waiting for one.

[quote]
We have changed it numerous times and survived and now you’re coming out of the woodwork to say this change will kill it. (Despite the direct evidence to the health of heterosexual marriage in the state where people could first get married as gay).[/quote]

The health of heterosexual marriage in the state where people could first get married as gay doesn’t disprove what i said.
If anything it confirms it.

It’s easier to be married when there is next to no criterium to be married and when you don’t need to commit yourself to a social institution anymore.

476

This is semantic and subjective, but I don’t mind anybody thinking such. There is no intrinsic problem with redefinition.

477

[quote]
If that is the message, then the message is in error, because heterosexual monogamous relationships are not the most socially useful for the portion of the population that is gay. In fact, it can be considered socially detrimental for a gay guy to marry a woman.[/quote]

I don’t think you understand what “socially useful” means.
Probably because you don’t care about society as a whole.

Which is fine, as long as you don’t pretend otherwise.

478

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

Currently, the “message” of marriage is : “our society prefer heterosexual monogamous relationships, because these relationships are the most socially useful”

[/quote]

If that is the message, then the message is in error, because heterosexual monogamous relationships are not the most socially useful for the portion of the population that is gay. In fact, it can be considered socially detrimental for a gay guy to marry a woman.[/quote]

Heterosexual relationships need no help to be the preferred method for people. The majority of people are straight in this country.

I also don’t know why it continues to get ignored that the divorce rate is lower in places that allow gay marriage. Apparently the argument could be made that gay marriage is actually GREAT for heterosexual marriage instead of the death nail in the coffin for all heterosexual couples.

More importantly why care? How is a gay person getting married to another gay person in a an area changing the relationship of mine? We are doing so much to get ready for our wedding, but one thing we aren’t doing is preparing for all the things we need to get ready for in case Kansas lets gay people get married.

And society allows all sorts of socially unnecessary behaviors to take place anyways. Like I asked Sloth early why no push to ban smoking, pop, McDonald’s, reality TV, comedy clubs, and all the other things that aren’t “good” for people.

Why are we so scared of the freedom to let adult relationships happen? What’s weird is arguing for all of these scary things in a time when something has already happened.

479

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is semantic and subjective, but I don’t mind anybody thinking such. There is no intrinsic problem with redefinition.[/quote]

Really ?
So it’s ok if me and my girlfriend make a contract who suddenly redefine a contract you made years ago ?

480

[quote]kamui wrote:

You jumped the shark with this post. Why do you get to decide what is socially useful and not? And why does your definition of socially useful trump the definition of the majority of American people?