question about gay marriage

[BigBallinStalin]

TL;DR

lol, okay, natty.

1) You insulted a sexual activity of homosexuals, which is ironic.

2) Your position regarding me is incorrect. You're just being pissy.

3) There's no need to call people a douche bag because they value different issues at magnitudes different from yours. Most children can understand that.

1) I've done no such thing. This just proves my point - you take something I say way out of context and try to use it as an argument, when your actual arguments have no base to stand on. Basically, you're just making shit up in an attempt to slander me, to divert the conversation away from the actual issue.

2) Your position regarding me is incorrect. You're just being shitty.

3) I haven't called anyone a douchebag, per se. I said carpet dude was espousing views that are by their nature selfish douchebaggery. Furthermore, the issue is not that carpet dude "values different issues at different magnitudes", this is another strawman argument invented by you, which again speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty.

The issue is that he was basically saying that he doesn't care if gay people are lynched for being gay, because "there is no danger to him", so he actually approves the killing of people for being gay. And this is not an esoteric thing - there are still many countries in the world where homosexuality is punishable by death.

So, here's the thing BBS. You think carpetdude should have the right to express a bigoted and harmful view, because to not approve of that view would be intolerant. DUHHH!!!! GOTCHA NATTY, LOL!!!! NOW UR THE INTOLERANT ONE!!! Amirite?

You know, that's just what the White power crowd does - right after ranting about how all the "jews and n****rs" need to be killed, they hide behind "freedom of speech" and say that people need to respect their harmful, racist views because TOLERANCE.

Well, it doesn't work that way, obviously.

tl;dr

I already explained the reasoning behind (1), (2), and (3). Instead of taking the high chance of repeating myself here, I'll just wait for you to read what I already explained.

[Lootifer]

i didnt word it very well; i meant to say "inb4 Natty ruthlessly attempts to cut BBS down using personal attacks to show HOW VERY FUCKING WRONG he is"

In b4 the whole "in b4" thing became irrelevant and boring... oh wait, too late for that.

OH CRAP IVE GOT IT ALL WRONG, HERES ME MISTAKING OPINION FOR FACT, GOSH DARNIT

[Phatscotty]

there is no need to be offensive.

I'm not, just stating a fact. It does seem like you're a selfish douchebag. If you have a problem with that, then maybe you shouldn't say things that make it seem like you're a selfish douchebag.

it only seems that way to selfish douchebags. If he was a selfish douchebag, his post probably would have read something like this...."you are a selfish douchebag"

[Phatscotty]

Marriage is a religious tradition. Only when the government got too big and they started issuing licenses and tax structures (control) based around it did it start to become a government issue.

So much for the 1st Amendment, eh?

-rd

exactly!

the government is too big and infringes on the freedom of religion more and more everyday

I was referring to the Separation of Church and State, but ok...

-rd

So am I. The State should have remained separate from the Church's traditions, specifically marriage.

There is less separation now.

[Lootifer]

So am I. The State should have remained separate from the Church's traditions, specifically marriage.

There is less separation now.

How do you mean? Do you think Marriage should be only a Church tradition?

Because that would be a massive step backwards wouldn't it? Does everyone in the States get married in a church? Are they always religious ceremonies?

Sorry lots of question, but im just curious as to what you mean.

[Woodruff]

So am I. The State should have remained separate from the Church's traditions, specifically marriage.

There is less separation now.

How do you mean? Do you think Marriage should be only a Church tradition?

Because that would be a massive step backwards wouldn't it?

I suppose that depends on one's perspective. I wouldn't see it as a step backwards at all, never mind a massive one.

Does everyone in the States get married in a church?

No.

Are they always religious ceremonies?

If it's in a church, I would think so. Those outside of a church are not (I don't think, not having any personal experience with one).

[Lootifer]

Then it begs the question: If you put Marriage into the church "bucket" rather than state, what do all the people who love the tradition of marriage (as defined by modern society, not it's history) but aren't religious do?

[stahrgazer]

Any thoughts?

Yes...you're not looking at the situation with any rationality. Why must everyone be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex? That's really NOT what marriage has historically entailed on a consistent basis, so it doesn't seem to me that there is a rationale for claiming that as "the definition". As to not claiming equal protection, they absolutely ARE doing exactly that by claiming the right to marry the person that they love.

Dwilhelmi, you're absolutely right, it's not about discrimination, it is about definition.

Woodruff, he is thinking rationally. You're asking "Why should it?" and that's like saying a loaf of bread shouldn't be called a loaf of bread anymore because you want to call it a biscuit. Two genders absolutely is the historical definition of "marriage," and it's been very consistent in that until this past decade or so... more than 2000 years of consistency there.

By requiring a definitional change rather than "something" in place (social union?) to grant the same protection to any same-sex partner as is granted to the married spouse, gays and lesbians absolutely are NOT asking for "equal protection." They are instead, as dwilhelmi points out, asking for a definitional change. And that's where I disagree with their request.

I'm against "gay marriage," but I'm very FOR a legal "social union" that grants any chosen partner the same rights to insurance, benefits, hospital visitation, estates, and so forth.

[narthuro]

Then it begs the question: If you put Marriage into the church "bucket" rather than state, what do all the people who love the tradition of marriage (as defined by modern society, not it's history) but aren't religious do?

There will certainly be institutions that pop up that provide non-religious marriages. It's not like high dining venues and ballrooms won't take people's money because they're having purely ceremonial marriages. There might also be churches (I don't know, I'm just assuming) that would be glad to accept gay marriages for the same reason: gay people's money is just as good as straight people's money.

[natty dread]

Then it begs the question:

Raises the question.

[BigBallinStalin]

Then it begs the question: If you put Marriage into the church "bucket" rather than state, what do all the people who love the tradition of marriage (as defined by modern society, not it's history) but aren't religious do?

There will certainly be institutions that pop up that provide non-religious marriages. It's not like high dining venues and ballrooms won't take people's money because they're having purely ceremonial marriages. There might also be churches (I don't know, I'm just assuming) that would be glad to accept gay marriages for the same reason: gay people's money is just as good as straight people's money.

Yeah, Loot, the market would provide.

There's a demand for non-religious marriages, there's the ability for entrepreneurs to spot and organize the capital required in order for supply to meet demand, some price is established, competition ensues, etc.--I'm assuming the legal barriers to trade aren't too cost-prohibitive.

[thegreekdog]

So, for example, I have a passing interest in whether or not gays should be permitted to marry. My interest mostly lies in the legal and constitutional nature of allowing gays to marry. I'm interested in the constitutional development of that particular issue. Do I think gays should be permitted the legal status of marriage with respect to the government's said licensing of marriage? Yes. Do I care enough to donate my time and money? No. The carpet man has indicated he doesn't care. Certain people take offense to this and I'm not sure that's fair.

I am not actually offended that he doesn't care. There are plenty of things that I don't care about, because I don't personally think they're important. It is actually the assertion that he doesn't care "because it doesn't affect him" that I find distasteful (you'll notice I have not called him a douche bag or anything of that sort).

Otherwise, we get into a discussion of why we're not caring about the plight of Aborigines in Australia or the plight of workers in China, and that's stupid. We may not care as much about those things because we have limited time and resources to pay attention to and help do something about those things. If the carpet man were making an argument against gay marriage (i.e. saying we need to pay attention and do something to prevent gays from marrying), then perhaps he's paying attention and then perhaps he's a douchebag. He's not doing that. His determination to spend his limited resources on other things does not mean he is against gay marriage; it means he's spending his limited resources on other things.

That's actually NOT what he's saying. He's saying HE DOESN'T CARE, NOT "I don't have time or money to devote to that". There is a big difference, to be sure.

On a related note, it's natural for people to care more about things that directly affect them.

Of course. I've never suggested otherwise.

I would assume you care more about the state of teachers unions in whatever state you are in than I do. Does that mean I'm a douche bag? I would assume I care more about the property taxes in New Jersey or the fiscal situation in Greece than you do. Does that mean you're a douche bag? If your answer is no to that question, then is it fair for me to assert that what affects others is of no concern to you as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Nope, because that's demonstrably not the case. Whereas in this situation, there is an explicit statement of it.

I thought you just wanted your question answered. Are we starting a new discussion?

I believe it's part of the same discussion.

Okay. Let's say hypothetically that the carpet man merely does not care if gays get married.

The "caring" part is an investment of time and, possibly, money. So, caring about something suggests some sort of investment.

[Lootifer]

Then it begs the question: If you put Marriage into the church "bucket" rather than state, what do all the people who love the tradition of marriage (as defined by modern society, not it's history) but aren't religious do?

There will certainly be institutions that pop up that provide non-religious marriages. It's not like high dining venues and ballrooms won't take people's money because they're having purely ceremonial marriages. There might also be churches (I don't know, I'm just assuming) that would be glad to accept gay marriages for the same reason: gay people's money is just as good as straight people's money.

So we strip away any legal bindings attached to current marriages? And make them purely ceremonial, i.e. meaningless*?

Meaningless is opinion of course.

[Phatscotty]

So am I. The State should have remained separate from the Church's traditions, specifically marriage.

There is less separation now.

How do you mean? Do you think Marriage should be only a Church tradition?

Because that would be a massive step backwards wouldn't it? Does everyone in the States get married in a church? Are they always religious ceremonies?

Sorry lots of question, but im just curious as to what you mean.

you will have to read the persons comment that I responded to in order to understand what that means.

It got too long

[Lootifer]

Im not worried about the US, im just questioning your stance on Marriage... le sigh.

[Phatscotty]

Im not worried about the US, im just questioning your stance on Marriage... le sigh.

I think states should choose.

[Lootifer]

Nice ninja delete.

[PLAYER57832]

Any thoughts?

Yes...you're not looking at the situation with any rationality. Why must everyone be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex? That's really NOT what marriage has historically entailed on a consistent basis, so it doesn't seem to me that there is a rationale for claiming that as "the definition". As to not claiming equal protection, they absolutely ARE doing exactly that by claiming the right to marry the person that they love.

Dwilhelmi, you're absolutely right, it's not about discrimination, it is about definition.

Woodruff, he is thinking rationally. You're asking "Why should it?" and that's like saying a loaf of bread shouldn't be called a loaf of bread anymore because you want to call it a biscuit. Two genders absolutely is the historical definition of "marriage," and it's been very consistent in that until this past decade or so... more than 2000 years of consistency there.

references, because my Anthropology class told a VERY, VERY different story.

Even Wikki agrees:

Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

full link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

By requiring a definitional change rather than "something" in place (social union?) to grant the same protection to any same-sex partner as is granted to the married spouse, gays and lesbians absolutely are NOT asking for "equal protection." They are instead, as dwilhelmi points out, asking for a definitional change. And that's where I disagree with their request.

Just wrong.

AND..the fact that your definition, the definition of the Judeo-Christian Church (and yes, some other groups/religions) has been conveniently used to excuse offering some people more protections than others in their personal relationships IS discrimination.

I'm against "gay marriage," but I'm very FOR a legal "social union" that grants any chosen partner the same rights to insurance, benefits, hospital visitation, estates, and so forth.

Why so intent on changing the definition and insisting that he definition used by the Christian church (et al), a definition really codified in the past few hundred years instead of accepting the far older and broader definition?

What harm in including homosexuals in the definition of marriage?

[dwilhelmi]

Any thoughts?

Yes...you're not looking at the situation with any rationality. Why must everyone be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex? That's really NOT what marriage has historically entailed on a consistent basis, so it doesn't seem to me that there is a rationale for claiming that as "the definition". As to not claiming equal protection, they absolutely ARE doing exactly that by claiming the right to marry the person that they love.

Dwilhelmi, you're absolutely right, it's not about discrimination, it is about definition.

Woodruff, he is thinking rationally. You're asking "Why should it?" and that's like saying a loaf of bread shouldn't be called a loaf of bread anymore because you want to call it a biscuit. Two genders absolutely is the historical definition of "marriage," and it's been very consistent in that until this past decade or so... more than 2000 years of consistency there.

references, because my Anthropology class told a VERY, VERY different story.

Even Wikki agrees:

Various marriage practices have existed throughout the world. In some societies an individual is limited to being in one such couple at a time (monogamy), while other cultures allow a male to have more than one wife (polygyny) or, less commonly, a female to have more than one husband (polyandry). Some societies also allow marriage between two males or two females. Societies frequently have other restrictions on marriage based on the ages of the participants, pre-existing kinship, and membership in religious or other social groups.

full link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

By requiring a definitional change rather than "something" in place (social union?) to grant the same protection to any same-sex partner as is granted to the married spouse, gays and lesbians absolutely are NOT asking for "equal protection." They are instead, as dwilhelmi points out, asking for a definitional change. And that's where I disagree with their request.

Just wrong.

AND..the fact that your definition, the definition of the Judeo-Christian Church (and yes, some other groups/religions) has been conveniently used to excuse offering some people more protections than others in their personal relationships IS discrimination.

I'm against "gay marriage," but I'm very FOR a legal "social union" that grants any chosen partner the same rights to insurance, benefits, hospital visitation, estates, and so forth.

Why so intent on changing the definition and insisting that he definition used by the Christian church (et al), a definition really codified in the past few hundred years instead of accepting the far older and broader definition?

What harm in including homosexuals in the definition of marriage?

OK, I'll give you that there are multiple definitions of marriage. That is kinda what Prop 8 is, though - asking the people to vote on the definition that they agree with. And they did. And the one man + one woman = marriage definition won out. How is that discrimination? Nobody said that gay people couldn't be in their own committed relationship, nor did anybody say that gay relationships couldn't be granted the same rights as marriages have. All that happened was that the voters of California took a vote on what definition they wanted for marriage.

[Haggis_McMutton]

OK, I'll give you that there are multiple definitions of marriage. That is kinda what Prop 8 is, though - asking the people to vote on the definition that they agree with. And they did. And the one man + one woman = marriage definition won out. How is that discrimination? Nobody said that gay people couldn't be in their own committed relationship, nor did anybody say that gay relationships couldn't be granted the same rights as marriages have. All that happened was that the voters of California took a vote on what definition they wanted for marriage.

So if the voters of California took a vote on what their definition of a "person" is and they decided some minority or another is not a "person", that'd be kosher too, right?
Fundamental rights aren't up for popular vote, that's why they're fundamental.

[HapSmo19]

No point in allowing gays to marry now with the clathrate gun about to go off.

[Phatscotty]

It's up to the people because they are the ones who are going to have to foot the bill.

The people decide what they will and will not support. California is so broke that this does not even come down to constitutional or unconstitutional. Liberalism has bankrupted California so badly that it can't afford to uphold anything whether it's in their constitution or not. LOL at them trying to be more liberal. Just have them change their name to Greece and be done with it.

[PLAYER57832]

it seems you are an arrogant and self-righteous keyboard monkey, who seems to feel that everyone should view the world the same way as him. it seems that your intelligence is of a level where you are only able to converse with someone you disagree with by using insults. it seems you are a fairly unintelligent individual.

Now you're getting the hang off it. Except you need a better finish "fairly unintelligent individual" really doesn't cut it.

------

@ the homosexuality thing.

I agree to an extent, gay marriage in itself doesn't seem overly important to me either, don't care too much.
What bothers me much more is the principle underlined in things like gay marriage. Namely that the government should limit it's citizens personal freedoms without any kind of rational reasoning behind the decision. That it should be ok for the government to decide that I should not be allowed to take a action that affects only myself.
And I do think that is an important issue, so gay marriage becomes important by proxy.

This is exactly why it really does impact us all. Because if the government can decide this basically to humor the religious views of some, then what prevents other people coming into power and using the same arguments to get THEIR ideas put forward, things that very much might impact you.

Also, people tend to underestimate the benefits of marriage legally (as well as legal drawbacks). Automatic healthcare coverage is one example, the ability to make major medical decisions without extra legal documents, the ability to have true joint custody of children you help raise.

What if this is used to decide that the state will no longer honor Hindu marriages becuase they are not performed using Christian rights? Seems far-fetched now, but... is it really? What if I substituted the word "Muslim"?

[PLAYER57832]

Firstly, being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, it's genetic. I hope this is a misstatement, and not some indicator of hidden homophobia. I'm shocked no one else has pointed this out.

Ummmm because thats not true?

It is not necessarily genetic, but almost certainly has a biologic basis.. but you can visit one of the threads on homosexuality (or just google the scientific data.. as opposed to the religiously backed data) on the subject.

[Woodruff]

Any thoughts?

Yes...you're not looking at the situation with any rationality. Why must everyone be limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex? That's really NOT what marriage has historically entailed on a consistent basis, so it doesn't seem to me that there is a rationale for claiming that as "the definition". As to not claiming equal protection, they absolutely ARE doing exactly that by claiming the right to marry the person that they love.

Dwilhelmi, you're absolutely right, it's not about discrimination, it is about definition.

Woodruff, he is thinking rationally. You're asking "Why should it?" and that's like saying a loaf of bread shouldn't be called a loaf of bread anymore because you want to call it a biscuit. Two genders absolutely is the historical definition of "marriage," and it's been very consistent in that until this past decade or so... more than 2000 years of consistency there.

No, it absolutely IS NOT "the historical definition of marriage". Good God, do you people ever look outside of your own preconceptions?