[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
Why don’t we just call them two guys living together who are extra fond of each other, and give them no special rights under the law?
[/quote]
Where it is now if they have a civil union then they can say that and it seems like most people (hetero) that I know that have civil unions still just call themselves married. But the ones that live in states that allow civil unions do at least have the rights afforded by that.[/quote]
No, that’s a marriage in the eye’s of the gubment. I think you’re confusing ‘civil ceremony’ with civil union. A marriage is a type of civil union though.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
Why don’t we just call them two guys living together who are extra fond of each other, and give them no special rights under the law?
[/quote]
Where it is now if they have a civil union then they can say that and it seems like most people (hetero) that I know that have civil unions still just call themselves married. But the ones that live in states that allow civil unions do at least have the rights afforded by that.[/quote]
No, that’s a marriage in the eye’s of the gubment. I think you’re confusing ‘civil ceremony’ with civil union. A marriage is a type of civil union though.[/quote]
They call them Civil Marriages…If we are talking about the same thing.
How do you see Civil Marriages performed by government officials? Do you see them as valid? Most couples I know who took this route just say they are married. Some have religious tone to them.
Serious question here gang. Which would you rather see (please don’t derail it into an option C that excludes both of these)
An across the board acceptance of civil unions by homosexuals in every state and with all the civil unions laws/benefits being the same as they are now or leave it to state by state and allow those states to legalize full marriage between homosexuals, afforded the same kind of benefits?
In either case a repeal of DOMA would not be necessary to my understanding
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have to say I pretty much agree with everything Pat wrote, except needing to see more research.[/quote]
I don’t understand the indignation from calling a male-male/female-female union a marriage. I mean if they are given 100% the same benefits and we call it shmarriage, what exactly changes?
[/quote]
If thats the case and what gays really want is equality in the eyes of the law (tax breaks, partner rights, etc.) then why not concede the union bit and get on with it. The word/idea of the institution is what the other side seems to be wrapped up in so why not concede it?[/quote]
Why don’t we just call them two guys living together who are extra fond of each other, and give them no special rights under the law?
[/quote]
Where it is now if they have a civil union then they can say that and it seems like most people (hetero) that I know that have civil unions still just call themselves married. But the ones that live in states that allow civil unions do at least have the rights afforded by that.[/quote]
No, that’s a marriage in the eye’s of the gubment. I think you’re confusing ‘civil ceremony’ with civil union. A marriage is a type of civil union though.[/quote]
Civil unions don’t have access to federal marriage rights/benefits nor is the union “portable” to a state that doesn’t recognize the union. So , no not the same to the gubment
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Serious question here gang. Which would you rather see (please don’t derail it into an option C that excludes both of these)
An across the board acceptance of civil unions by homosexuals in every state and with all the civil unions laws/benefits being the same as they are now or leave it to state by state and allow those states to legalize full marriage between homosexuals, afforded the same kind of benefits?
In either case a repeal of DOMA would not be necessary to my understanding[/quote]B
Serious question here gang. Which would you rather see (please don’t derail it into an option C that excludes both of these)
An across the board acceptance of civil unions by homosexuals in every state and with all the civil unions laws/benefits being the same as they are now or leave it to state by state and allow those states to legalize full marriage between homosexuals, afforded the same kind of benefits?[/quote]
How would you accomplish an “across the board acceptance of civil unions in every state”? There is no federal marriage law - there are federal laws that recognize marriage (i.e., tax code), but such laws only recognize pre-existing unions - they do not compel recognition of any union in a given state.
Serious question here gang. Which would you rather see (please don’t derail it into an option C that excludes both of these)
An across the board acceptance of civil unions by homosexuals in every state and with all the civil unions laws/benefits being the same as they are now or leave it to state by state and allow those states to legalize full marriage between homosexuals, afforded the same kind of benefits?[/quote]
How would you accomplish an “across the board acceptance of civil unions in every state”? There is no federal marriage law - there are federal laws that recognize marriage (i.e., tax code), but such laws only recognize pre-existing unions - they do not compel recognition of any union in a given state. [/quote]
I should have clarified to say an across the board acceptance of recognized civil unions by homosexuals since DOMA just prevents access to federal rights for same-sex unions right?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Serious question here gang. Which would you rather see (please don’t derail it into an option C that excludes both of these)
An across the board acceptance of civil unions by homosexuals in every state and with all the civil unions laws/benefits being the same as they are now or leave it to state by state and allow those states to legalize full marriage between homosexuals, afforded the same kind of benefits?
In either case a repeal of DOMA would not be necessary to my understanding[/quote]
Actually that is why Obama Admin is not enforcing DOMA, because DOMA makes it a State’s rights issue.
Well, I had rather my words be incoherent than my thoughts, which must be terrible, I am sure.[/quote]
I’ll take your word for it, and I have no doubt that you are sure of it.
[quote]In my perfect world, government would get out of the marriage business.
There is no social engineering to be seen.
In your perfect world your vision of social engineering competes with others, take this up with your fellow liberals. [/quote]
This is stupid on its face - if it were a “perfect” world, there would be no competition among concepts and policies or need for it, because there would be no “imperfections” to smooth out or fix by and through the contest of ideas.
Well done.
[quote]You even go so far as if the wish to be accepted is not perfectly natural too… for a social animal.
THE social animal, no less. [/quote]
There is nothing wrong with someone wanted to be accepted, that is fine - that is irrelevant to whether we need to institutionalize through the power of the state a concept that provides no reciprocal benefits to society.
Of course it is an exercise in power - society exercises its power to put a brake on undesirable activity for the betterment of said society, and always has. It’s a crucial function to maintaining civilization.
That doesn’t fit in with your libertarian “perfect world” - so what? Even better - who cares?[/quote]
Well, it seems to be unavoidable now, poppycock.
Yes, I am sure of it, I witness your suffering.
Then, in a perfect world, as far as the circumstances make it possible, noone would force his idea of how a marriage should be on others. If that leads to a ruthless Darwinian selection process, awesome. Because I, do not pretend to know, that is your territory Hillary.
As to your claims that it provides no benefits to society, prove it Jeremy, I needz to know ur calculus. U R so incredibly sure that it must be so. Show me the numbers.
Finally, no, or maybe yes, it always has, but what it deemed to be insufferable has changed quite a bit over time.
[/quote]
It wasn’t about “ANY” benefit. It’s about a critical benefit. Homosexuality vanishes tomorrow (and since we’re talking about medical science now, a real possibility), it’s a curious news story. Heterosexuality? disaster. Then there’s the whole raising the child with both biological parents present.
[/quote]
I know exactly why you feel the need to add these weird addendums to every simple yes/no question you ask here. I feel like I need a legal assistant to vet my posts for any possible loophole or ambiguity.
Your post above should literally be half the length it is, but we both know exactly what would happen if you made the tactical mistake of just using plain English: “You lose the debaaaate, you lose the debaaaaaate! Abusive relationships! Pedophiles! Nannynannybooboo! Forced sterilization of felons FTW!” [insert cat meme]
Earlier apparently I supported setting people on fire.
Good grief. [/quote]
You are exactly right, sir. Exactly right.
I was thinking of what a friend of mine - a boxer - told me here while back. He said the absolute hardest qnd worst person to box against was someone who didn’t know how to box. Not because they were extra tough or hard-hitting or anything like that - but because…they didn’t know how to box. They spend all their time swinging wildly and stupidly, and most of your time is wasted having to deal with all that mess and very little time actually boxing.
The exact same principle can be applied to this thread. Instead of clean arguments and counter-arguments (which is the fun stuff, the “boxing”), we get non-sequiturs and straw men: “yeah, you may have secular, public policy arguments against gay marriage, but did you see that a Christian pastor wants to burn up gays??!!! How do you deal with that??!!!” Or, my favorite: “don’t support gay marriage - you must be a bigot!!!”
Pro-gay marriage or pro-traditional marriage aside, these bozos simply don’t know how to box. I know exactly what my friend meant.[/quote]
Your utilitarian calculus darling, I am still waiting.
Since you seem to know how this works, I am dying to know your utilitarian calculus.
Because that is what it would be.
And because I just happen to know one or two things about that.
Your turn, homosexual marriage would reduce overall utility by how much and I want numbers.
Because, I really, truly needz to know, what is the overall utility with a hetero only marriage as opposed to a free for all society.
Because, if utility was objective and inter commensurable that would hardly pose any problem.
Alas, so far no one could show that it was, so I am willing to bask in TB wisdom, if he, finally, demonstrates that there indeed is an objective base to morality.
[quote]orion wrote:
Because, I really, truly needz to know, what is the overall utility with a hetero only marriage as opposed to a free for all society.
[/quote]
This is a discussion about STATE RECOGNIZED and PRIVILEGED private arrangements. Best friends are still best friends. Swingers are still swingers. The polyamorous are still polyamorous. Roommates are still roommates. And, homosexuals are still homosexuals. In your free-for-all society they’d be no more recognized and privileged than a pair of best friends, anyways. Not what they’re arguing for. They’re arguing for STATE recognition.
Rational marriage is about privileging the smallest unit capable of producing and rearing it’s own biological children in an intact home. Maximizing tax producers, not consumers. People who CAN vote for less welfare state. What you’re seeing with the welfare state? That is the result of people wanting to live the ‘free-for-all’ life, while voting for politicians to fund it. The wealthy might be able to live that life on their own. Everyone else wants it subsidized.
My advice Orion? Find a libertarian island. Move all of your libertarian folks there. In your twilight years watch as those free-for-all folks start supporting policies that take the edge off of the messy consequences of free-for-alldom. Perhaps a income and savings requirement for the settlers? That could stave off the nanny state for a few generations.
[quote]orion wrote:
Because, I really, truly needz to know, what is the overall utility with a hetero only marriage as opposed to a free for all society.
[/quote]
This is a discussion about STATE RECOGNIZED and PRIVILEGED private arrangements. Best friends are still best friends. Swingers are still swingers. The polyamorous are still polyamorous. Roommates are still roommates. And, homosexuals are still homosexuals. In your free-for-all society they’d be no more recognized and privileged than a pair of best friends, anyways. Not what they’re arguing for. They’re arguing for STATE recognition.
Rational marriage is about privileging the smallest unit capable of producing and rearing it’s own biological children in an intact home. Maximizing tax producers, not consumers. People who CAN vote for less welfare state. What you’re seeing with the welfare state? That is the result of people wanting to live the ‘free-for-all’ life, while voting for politicians to fund it. The wealthy might be able to live that life on their own. Everyone else wants it subsidized.
[/quote]
You should just save this to your clipboard.
How many times do you think you’ve typed it so far?
As intellectually awkward as it is for me to reconcile what I find to be compelling, logical points with my initial POV on the issue (and continuing emotional inclination to stick to my guns), I gotta admit you guys have a great perspective on the debate.
Kinda weird that the only arguments against gay marriage MOST people actually know about come from Bible-thumping, mullet-growing rednecks on street corners.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Sloth, Cortes and TB: interesting stuff.
As intellectually awkward as it is for me to reconcile what I find to be compelling, logical points with my initial POV on the issue (and continuing emotional inclination to stick to my guns), I gotta admit you guys have a great perspective on the debate.
Kinda weird that the only arguments against gay marriage MOST people actually know about come from Bible-thumping, mullet-growing rednecks on street corners.
Your argument actually makes sense.[/quote]
Thanks. It’s nice to see at least one person who may have originally held an opposing opinion is willing to look at the arguments for what they are. This is the second time we’ve been through this recently, the other thread I think reaching upwards of twenty pages before this one was started and we went through the whole thing all over again. A looooot of people so mired in their ideological safe-place that they’ll chew off their own leg to escape the hand that pulls them out. Cognitive dissonance at its ugliest.
Let’s turn this on its head for just a moment here. Gay marriage proponents, please explain, using concise, unambiguous language, WHY, exactly, do homosexual unions deserve to be rewarded with the significant legal and monetary privileges, benefits, and equivalence of status that married heterosexual couples enjoy?
Our side has provided the answer and specifics to this question ad nauseum, and only the most brain dead gay marriage proponents have dared to suggest that our reasons are anything other than rational and viable.
So, let’s have it. What is it that makes gay marriage so great? There must be something that sets it above other relationships and on “equal” footing with heterosexual marriage. What is it? Enquiring minds want to know.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Let’s turn this on its head for just a moment here. Gay marriage proponents, please explain, using concise, unambiguous language, WHY, exactly, do homosexual unions deserve to be rewarded with the significant legal and monetary privileges, benefits, and equivalence of status that married heterosexual couples enjoy?
Our side has provided the answer and specifics to this question ad nauseum, and only the most brain dead gay marriage proponents have dared to suggest that our reasons are anything other than rational and viable.
So, let’s have it. What is it that makes gay marriage so great? There must be something that sets it above other relationships and on “equal” footing with heterosexual marriage. What is it? Enquiring minds want to know.[/quote]
I think you question is answered therein. I also think your question was answered on this thread (or maybe the other) but it’s pretty much the same thing.
If you are feeling better and can find that old post. We could continue the conversation we were having last week (or so). If I remember correctly, the interesting part of your beliefs is that you do see societal benefits of homosexual marriage and do see homosexuals as being able to be competent and capable parents, but don’t see this as meeting the “standard” of benefit heterosexual marriage. Many of those arguing with you would deny those things.
Have a good one. If you like the article we could discuss it as well.