What, what? In the butt?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
You can BBQ it because the cow is not a person who has rights as an individual
Right, IT has no rights. Therefore, no need for it’s consent. All you need is the consenting adult male.[/quote]
For marriage (legal consent needed, cow cannot commit) or BBQ (legal consent normally not needed, but cow is still very committed)?
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
You can BBQ it because the cow is not a person who has rights as an individual
Right, IT has no rights. Therefore, no need for it’s consent. All you need is the consenting adult male.
For marriage (legal consent needed[/quote]
Hold on now, I thought we were redifining marriage for the benefit of consenting adults? But, now you’re trying to limit the definition of marriage by a preconcieved notion. And, in any event we’re talking about a consenting adult.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
You can BBQ it because the cow is not a person who has rights as an individual
Right, IT has no rights. Therefore, no need for it’s consent. All you need is the consenting adult male.
For marriage (legal consent needed
Hold on now, I thought we were redifining marriage for the benefit of consenting adults? But, now you’re trying to limit the definition of marriage by a preconcieved notion. And, in any event we’re talking about a consenting adult. [/quote]
I don’t get your question: marriage requires consent to which by definition of our laws only people are able. I don’t get the preconceived notion bit - what do you mean?
Makkun
Should heterosexual male roommates be able to marry? Why not? Curious how some pro gay marriage types would possibly deny such an arangement. Maybe noone here would. Just curious.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
Sloth wrote:
makkun wrote:
You can BBQ it because the cow is not a person who has rights as an individual
Right, IT has no rights. Therefore, no need for it’s consent. All you need is the consenting adult male.
For marriage (legal consent needed
Hold on now, I thought we were redifining marriage for the benefit of consenting adults? But, now you’re trying to limit the definition of marriage by a preconcieved notion. And, in any event we’re talking about a consenting adult.
I don’t get your question: marriage requires consent to which by definition of our laws only people are able. I don’t get the preconceived notion bit - what do you mean?
Makkun[/quote]
Right, so you need consent from the person in the marriage, but not the cow. The notion bit was about needing persons (therefore, consent) to make a marriage. Why would you want to tell farmer Bob he can’t marry Bessy his dairy cow? Why can’t he have it recognized fully by the state?
… ah, wait do you mean because the cow is not an person, it doesn’t need to consent to be married? Just like a BBQ?
If that’s the case, then you’ve misunderstood my argument: I state that the cow cannot parttake in a marriage as marriage requires consent of both partners [yes, indeed as a pre-conceived notion if you so wish]. It cannot consent as it’s not a person. For a BBQ, you don’t legally need both to consent - I’d argue it would object quite a lot. Being a cow sucks in that regard I guess.
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
But providing an intact family unit for offspring is the most important use of marriage.
I fully agree with that. It’s just amazing how differently intact family can be defined. The nuclear family as the main trend of the 20th Century, though often romanticised, doesn’t seem to be up for the task lately.
Makkun[/quote]
I agree with that.
The farmer may love Bessie the cow deeply (and let’s assume Bessie loves Bob too in a cowish way) - while he theoretically has the ability to give consent to a marriage, she has not. Hence, they can’t get married. Not because he can’t, but because she can’t.
[edit]: And that’s the key to most of my argument. Cows would have to be legally declared people first, before the slippery slope argument could count. Gay people are people already. That’s why I can’t be compared.
Makkun
PS: Why do I think of this Woody Allen movie with Gene Wilder and the sheep… 
Gay people are stupid.
Why would you invite the government into your relationship? Heterosexual marriage is bad enough with government interference, why would you voluntarily invite that into what would otherwise be a normal relationship?
Have the ceremony, go do your gay thing and get on with your damn (gay) lives.
Idiots.
[quote]makkun wrote:
The farmer may love Bessie the cow deeply (and let’s assume Bessie loves Bob too in a cowish way) - while he theoretically has the ability to give consent to a marriage, she has not. Hence, they can’t get married. Not because he can’t, but because she can’t.
Makkun
PS: Why do I think of this Woody Allen movie with Gene Wilder and the sheep… ;-)[/quote]
But, you’re hanging onto defining marriage, based on a personal notion, at his expense. There’s no need to get the cow’s consent, because it doesn’t have the rights of a person. So, as long as he consents to such a thing, should he not be able to have it recognized?
P.S. No.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[…]
But, you’re hanging onto defining marriage, based on a personal notion, at his expense. There’s no need to get the cow’s consent, because it doesn’t have the rights of a person. So, as long as he consents to such a thing, should he not be able to have it recognized?
P.S. No.[/quote]
Yes, I hang onto legally defining marriage (because it is a legally defined … thing) - as does the whole gay marriage discussion. Not on a personal notion, but on the legal definition of what constitutes marriage: the consent based legal union of two people. Gay marriage is attempting to widen the scope of who the people involved can be (in addition to mf, also ff or mm), but it is not questioning the people-based consent which is vital to be counted as marriage.
So, in order to have farmer Bob get married to his Bessie, he needs to get her recognised as a legal person first, enabling her to consent (thus gaining the right to marry). Once she has reached that - they can get married.
My argument is that gay marriage may question the definition of who the people involved in a marriage can be - but not if those involved are actually people. And that’s why there is no slippery slope on those grounds, as they are fundamentally different questions.
Makkun
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
I also don’t get why so many gays want to be married. Filing as a married couple raises your taxes and has very little benefits. The only big sticking point I can think of is inheritance/hospital authority, and both can be taken care of with some clever documenting before anything tragic occurs. Am I wrong?
I think you are mistaken. There are some benefits that cannot be conveyed to partners if they are not legally married. Insurance is an issue, so are pensions, which are sometimes transferable to a remaining spouse after death.
Ultimately, however, I do not think it is about any of these things. Instead of allowing the issue to resolve itself calmly over time, the gay rights crowd is ramming it down everyone’s throats. Gay marriage, in the final analysis, is more about forcing the legal system to recognize homosexuality than it is about benefits.
Which doesn’t mean that I am against gay marriage.[/quote]
Good post. Thanks for the clarification.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either.
It saddens me that otherwise intelligent people pull this one out every time a discussion about gay marriage comes up.
The “slippery slope” argument isn’t going away. There’s no logical reason why we can outlaw marrying an animal, a vegetable, or multiple men or women now. [/quote]
And why should there be?
If someone introduces a carrot as his wife, where is the problem?
The whole idea that marriage must be defined by the state somehow is because it has legal consequences. That is the price of letting governments meddle in private affairs to begin with.
Take government out of this and anyone can marry anything if he finds a priest, rabbi, or spiritual advisor to do it.
Who fucking cares.
[quote]Thomas Gabriel wrote:
I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to marry animals either. [/quote]
.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gay people are stupid.
Why would you invite the government into your relationship? Heterosexual marriage is bad enough with government interference, why would you voluntarily invite that into what would otherwise be a normal relationship?
Have the ceremony, go do your gay thing and get on with your damn (gay) lives.
Idiots.[/quote]
Whether or not it is smart to get married doesn’t matter. One class is allowed a privilege that another group is not allowed. Simple as that, we’re either all drinking from the same water fountain or we aren’t.
[quote]MrRezister wrote:
So I see that some voters in California have gotten together enough signatures to get a bill on the ballot that will ban recently-legalized Gay Marriages in the state.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD912H8JG0
I understand that most of the opposition to gay marriage comes from religious types, and I grew up in the Church, so I know that they think it is wrong.
But I can’t relate to this idea that since I think something is wrong, I should be able to make sure nobody else does it! I guess it’s the same thing with Gambling or Drinking, or Smoking. Can we not just agree that it is not the place of the Government to step in and tell us every little thing that we can or cannot do?
Gay marriage in particular is confusing to me. On the one hand, if two guys/girls/miscellaneous want to get married, how does that affect me? Does it raise my insurance rates? Does it affect my relationship with whatever God I choose to worship? Nope.
It seems to me that the solution is simple (not necessarily easy). If the government would get out of the marriage business altogether, the problem would basically go away, wouldn’t it? That way, “marriage” would remain a function of the church, and if a couple wanted to gain tax & legal benefits, they could apply for whatever partnership liscence they want to create. Just apply the same rules to gays and straight partners, and the religious types wouldn’t have anything left to complain about. Or at least that’s how I see it.[/quote]
The fact is, that prior to this law, California already had a Domestic Partners law that allowed ALL the same rights as a civil marriage. So from a human rights standpoint, this law was not needed. The only thing different is that now they can use the word “Married”.
Since most religions consider marriage to be a religious institution, and most all religions do not accept homosexuality, the issue is the use of the word marriage.
It’s about the word marriage and an attempt by one group of society (gays) to try and force another (Christians) to redefine the meaning of marriage. It is this attempt to redefine marriage that has Christians and others pissed off.
That is the issue!
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Whether or not it is smart to get married doesn’t matter. One class is allowed a privilege that another group is not allowed. Simple as that, we’re either all drinking from the same water fountain or we aren’t.[/quote]
Privilege? Outside interference into marriage isn’t a privilege, it’s a nuisance.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Gay people are stupid.
Why would you invite the government into your relationship? Heterosexual marriage is bad enough with government interference, why would you voluntarily invite that into what would otherwise be a normal relationship?
Have the ceremony, go do your gay thing and get on with your damn (gay) lives.
Idiots.
Whether or not it is smart to get married doesn’t matter. One class is allowed a privilege that another group is not allowed. Simple as that, we’re either all drinking from the same water fountain or we aren’t. [/quote]
Not quite. They are allowed to “drink from the same fountain.” They can marry the woman of their choosing. The just want the definition changed. And soon, so will the Muslims to conform to shari’ah law. And then the gays will have a huge problem on their hands, just like they now do in Europe.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The fact is, that prior to this law, California already had a Domestic Partners law that allowed ALL the same rights as a civil marriage. So from a human rights standpoint, this law was not needed. The only thing different is that now they can use the word “Married”.
Since most religions consider marriage to be a religious institution, and most all religions do not accept homosexuality, the issue is the use of the word marriage.
It’s about the word marriage and an attempt by one group of society (gays) to try and force another (Christians) to redefine the meaning of marriage. It is this attempt to redefine marriage that has Christians and others pissed off.
That is the issue![/quote]
So what you’re saying is that the problem lies with people who think they own the word? Last I checked, English didn’t “belong” to anyone. Language is public property.