Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay marriage and the law
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 196 of 206 (450652)
01-23-2008 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Jaderis
01-22-2008 8:56 PM


Re: The law
Jaderis writes:
quote:
I can call myself married all day long, but what really matters is the protections and benefits.
And just like when miscegenation laws were struck down, we didn't create a contract of "interracial union" that had "all the rights and responsibilities" of "traditional marriage." No, we simply used the machinery of marriage that was already in place and declared that the contract between two people of differing races was also "marriage."
There's no reason to try and come up with a different term. If those who don't like the concept of equality want to keep their relationships distinct, then they can come up with a new term. Call it "sanctification" since they seem to be stuck on the religious aspects of it.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2008 8:56 PM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 01-23-2008 12:33 PM Rrhain has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 197 of 206 (450728)
01-23-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Jaderis
01-22-2008 7:58 PM


Special rights for everyone
Jaderis writes:
The Constitution provides enough authority, dontcha think? The only people enacting special laws are the ones trying to "protect" marriage. All of those states that recently passed anti gay marriage laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman didn't have those "special laws" on the books before, did they? No. They had to "enact special laws" to make sure that heterosexuals got to keep their special rights, equality be damned.
But heterosexuals cannot marry anyone of the opposite sex they might prefer. A heterosexual man cannot legally marry his sister, his mother, his daughter, or even his first cousin. Does the Constitution say anything about that? No. Nor does it say anything about same-sex marriages.
The upside down thinking on this issue really just boggles my mind.
Then turn yourself right side up and shake the boggles out. The next thing you'll be asking for is that homosexuals are equally represented in grade-school textbooks. No more just mommie and daddy, now we ought to have mommie and mommie at the dinner table. Or daddy and daddy out in the garage working on the car. It's constitutional, of course, if you say it is.
Prediction: This same-sex marriage issue is predicated on the belief that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual, instead nature made them that way without having a choice in the matter. Well, may be so, but that will likely change soon. I'm reasonably confident that either genetic therapy or some other kind of treatment will emerge to reverse homosexuality back to the standard venue. It will be painless and positive for all involved. Because then gays and lesbians will finally have a choice in their own sexuality and they won't be able to blame it on nature anymore.
...and it naturally follows that if heterosexuals want to turn gay they will be able to do that, too. Then everyone will be equal and free to frolic on a level playing field.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Jaderis, posted 01-22-2008 7:58 PM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 01-23-2008 12:20 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 199 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 12:29 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 206 by FliesOnly, posted 01-23-2008 1:12 PM Fosdick has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 198 of 206 (450729)
01-23-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fosdick
01-23-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Special rights for everyone
No one is asking for special rights.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2008 12:08 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 199 of 206 (450732)
01-23-2008 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fosdick
01-23-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Special rights for everyone
Jaderis writes:
quote:
The Constitution provides enough authority, dontcha think? The only people enacting special laws are the ones trying to "protect" marriage. All of those states that recently passed anti gay marriage laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman didn't have those "special laws" on the books before, did they? No. They had to "enact special laws" to make sure that heterosexuals got to keep their special rights, equality be damned.
But heterosexuals cannot marry anyone of the opposite sex they might prefer. A heterosexual man cannot legally marry his sister, his mother, his daughter, or even his first cousin. Does the Constitution say anything about that? No. Nor does it say anything about same-sex marriages.
The state DOES have a compelling interest in preventing incest due to the eventual increase in birth defects after a few generations.
If that were not the case, and as with homosexuality the only arguments consisted of either "eww" or "my religion says that's bad," I would agree that incestuous marriages should be allowed as well so long as both parties are consenting adults.
As a matter of fact, as distasteful as I find it, I have no rational problem with an incestuous couple being married so long as both parties are consenting adults. Even the birth defect issue isn't all that compelling for the state, or we would ban marriages for anyone with any birth defect as well.
quote:
The upside down thinking on this issue really just boggles my mind.
Then turn yourself right side up and shake the boggles out. The next thing you'll be asking for is that homosexuals are equally represented in grade-school textbooks. No more just mommie and daddy, now we ought to have mommie and mommie at the dinner table. Or daddy and daddy out in the garage working on the car. It's constitutional, of course, if you say it is.
Prediction: This same-sex marriage issue is predicated on the belief that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual, instead nature made them that way without having a choice in the matter. Well, may be so, but that will likely change soon. I'm reasonably confident that either genetic therapy or some other kind of treatment will emerge to reverse homosexuality back to the standard venue. It will be painless and positive for all involved. Because then gays and lesbians will finally have a choice in their own sexuality and they won't be able to blame it on nature anymore.
...wow. Just wow. Do you honestly think that, for instance, a black berson would use gene therapy to become white in order to sidestep unfair treatment like the old mixed-marriage laws? Is that really the way you want to handle this issue?
And of course homosexual couples should be treated equally in schools! We dont necessarily need to state every possible combination in all of the books, but when a kindergarten teacher asks the students about their parents, a child with gay parents should be treated in a way that promotes acceptance and discourages "odd looks" or treating the situation as unusual in any way.
...and it naturally follows that if heterosexuals want to turn gay they will be able to do that, too. Then everyone will be equal and free to frolic on a level playing field.
”HM
I'm perfectly happy with myself as a heterosexual. The gay peopel I know are perfectly happy being gay (minus the bogotry that comes their way). I seriously doubt you will ever see many people "switch teams" even if this turns out to be possible.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2008 12:08 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2008 12:54 PM Rahvin has not replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 200 of 206 (450734)
01-23-2008 12:32 PM


RAZD, let me paraphrase your position and if I got something wrong you could come in and correct me.
You think that the government should get out of the marriage business and begin distributing "civil union" to everyone, heteros and homos. You think that this will achieve the equality we have been seeking, since everyone now is "drinking from the same drinking fountain". You think that when it comes to marriage we should leave that entirely to religion and that anyone can have a marriage ceremony in a church or whereever they wish. You think that essentially marriage is a religious institution and that it should be that way.
If what I stated above is correct, read on.
Consider the following analogy. Suppose for years and years and years the position of doctor or physician has always been for men only. But as time goes on women begin to go to med schools and do well enough to obtain their MD licenses. Conservatives argue that by definition you have to be a man to be a doctor or physician. The women that have worked hard for years argue that it should be open to anyone who is qualified. People like Hoot Mon comes in and suggest that we should call the women who qualified to medically treat others as person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick and the men who qualified to medically treat others as doctors or physicians.
The women point out the obvious inequality in this "seperate but equal" institution. And this is where you, RAZD, come in. You suggest that we should get rid of the physician's lisence over all and start distributing the person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick lisence. So, when you go to the medical facility and speak to one of the healers, you refer to him/her as something like Person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick Berkes instead of Doctor Berkes. This, you argue, would achieve the equality the women have been seeking for years.
You also argue that anyone now can call him/herself as doctor or physician. So, what's the big deal with the word doctor, you ask?
There are several reasons I can think as being wrong in this scenario. The men will continue to refer to themselves as doctors, but technically the women can't. Anyone can walk right up to the woman physician and says "you're not a doctor, so shut the hell up" and she can't say a thing back because technically she's a person-you-go-to-when-you're-sick, not a physician. But on the other hand, people will still think highly of the men physicians and still refer to them as doctors.
Yes, I and my future partner can call ourselves married anytime we want. I could also call myself a doctor or lawyer or engineer anytime I want. Anybody can call himself anything he wants. That's not the point.
The point is marriage and family are concepts that have ingrained in our culture for a long long time, and people like myself are not immune to it. We want to get married, not civil unionized. I know some gay couples who have been together for years, all the while waiting hopefully that one day they could get married. You, RAZD, might be one of those that would walk up and ask "why don't you just get a ceremonial marriage?" Sure, they could do that, but it's not the same. Call it a delusion, if you will. Myself and quite a few others I know are conservative enough that we want to get married, not civil unionized.
My experience with this is people who advocate civil union can often be placed in one of the two following groups:
(1) Straight married people who have taken their marriage for granted and thus absolutely can't see what the big deal is with us gays trying to get into the institution of marriage, and that includes the word "marriage".
(2) Gay people who just don't care much about this marriage issue and can't understand why some of the other gays aren't living in open relationships like so many people do nowadays.
Speaking as a conservative, marriage means everything to me, and that includes the word. Again, why don't I just start calling myself and my future partner "married"? My answer to that is it's the same reason why I don't just start calling myself "pastor" or "doctor" or "physicist" or "engineer" or "dog" or "cat" or "chair".
If you still think I come from an irrational point of view, I give up. You can continue to advocate your scorch earth policy rather than let some of us finally enjoy something that you straights have been enjoying for centuries. Yes, the issue is very important to me, and as far as I know it is very important to many other gay couples who have been together for years. There's a reason why we aren't just pushing for civil union. The rights and protections, while very important, are not the whole picture. It's the social value that we have placed on the institution of marriage, and that includes marriage, and the hopeful/wishful thinking that our families could finally be viewed as equal and our relationships are just as important as the traditional relationship that exists in a marriage.
But I guess it's something you won't understand. It's not uncommon to find liberals who just won't understand why this marriage issue is so important to us and why we won't settle for civil union.

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 12:36 PM teen4christ has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 201 of 206 (450735)
01-23-2008 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Rrhain
01-23-2008 2:44 AM


Re: The law
Rrhain writes:
If those who don't like the concept of equality want to keep their relationships distinct, then they can come up with a new term.
That's what I say: If some religious groups don't like the way society defines "marriage", they can get out of the marriage business and create their own institution in their own image.
There's no need to change laws to retroactively redefine what marriage means.

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here)
“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2008 2:44 AM Rrhain has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 202 of 206 (450737)
01-23-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by teen4christ
01-23-2008 12:32 PM


I don't know about RAZD, but I would be okay with removing marriage from the law and issuing only civil unions from a legal standpoint, because it would ensure equal treatment under the law.
That doesn't mean it's not a retarded idea to change so much when simply allowing gays to marry will solve the issue as well.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by teen4christ, posted 01-23-2008 12:32 PM teen4christ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by teen4christ, posted 01-23-2008 12:45 PM Rahvin has not replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 203 of 206 (450738)
01-23-2008 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Rahvin
01-23-2008 12:36 PM


quote:
I don't know about RAZD, but I would be okay with removing marriage from the law and issuing only civil unions from a legal standpoint, because it would ensure equal treatment under the law.
That doesn't mean it's not a retarded idea to change so much when simply allowing gays to marry will solve the issue as well.
Did we get rid of marriage and start calling it civil union for everybody when interracial couples wanted to get married?
People on here have been telling me to try to understand where others are coming from. Perhaps people should begin trying to understand where I am coming from? The rights and protections under the law, while very important, don't make up the whole picture. It's changing the whole social attitude towards gay people that's the main issue. And you don't do that by telling the conservative half of the country that they can't legally get married anymore just because gay people want to get married too.
Just for a moment, try to imagine how people in the south would have reacted if the government decided back then to end the institution of legal marriage back in the 60's and 70's because interracial couples wanted to get married. Instead of changing the social attitude toward interracial couples, I think people would have hated interracial couplings even more.
Now, just imagine what will happen if the government tells the conservative half of the country that they can't get a marriage lisence from the state anymore because gay people wanted to get married too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 12:36 PM Rahvin has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 204 of 206 (450739)
01-23-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Rahvin
01-23-2008 12:29 PM


Re: Special rights for everyone
Rahvin writes:
..wow. Just wow. Do you honestly think that, for instance, a black berson would use gene therapy to become white in order to sidestep unfair treatment like the old mixed-marriage laws? Is that really the way you want to handle this issue?
Ostensibly, race does not have a genetic identity”a point that has been argued before on this forum.
I'm perfectly happy with myself as a heterosexual. The gay peopel I know are perfectly happy being gay (minus the bogotry that comes their way). I seriously doubt you will ever see many people "switch teams" even if this turns out to be possible.
I couldn't say for sure about switching teams. But I can say that if choice is what freedom is all about then truly free people will want all the choices they can get. Maybe I might choose to be a lesbian for a little while and bed down with a few of them. Some of them are really cute.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Rahvin, posted 01-23-2008 12:29 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by teen4christ, posted 01-23-2008 1:07 PM Fosdick has not replied

teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5798 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 205 of 206 (450743)
01-23-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Fosdick
01-23-2008 12:54 PM


Re: Special rights for everyone
Hoot Mon writes
quote:
I couldn't say for sure about switching teams. But I can say that if choice is what freedom is all about then truly free people will want all the choices they can get. Maybe I might choose to be a lesbian for a little while and bed down with a few of them. Some of them are really cute.
Are you implying that gay people would want to change by sheer free will?
Speaking as a conservative, I assure you that it's not that easy if at all possible. I've had it easy. A couple of my friends were sent to "straight camps" by their parents to be "cured". Yes, they were both "cured" and they are still sleeping with other guys.
quote:
Ostensibly, race does not have a genetic identity”a point that has been argued before on this forum.
While race cannot be defined in any objective manner other than the place of origin, and even that is shaky ground, it can be intuitionally defined on an individual basis.
A person with dark skin could have fair skin crafted throughout his body and literally change his race. I could dye my hair and become mediterranian white. Or I could bleach my hair and eye brows and become an albino scandanavian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2008 12:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 206 of 206 (450746)
01-23-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Fosdick
01-23-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Special rights for everyone
Hoot Mon writes:
But heterosexuals cannot marry anyone of the opposite sex they might prefer.
This crap keeps getting repeated like people think it's fucking deep and meaningful , when in reality it's stupid, bigoted, and condescending as hell. Drop this stupid idea, Hoot Mon, it's a childish, third grade response to a serious issue.
Hoot Mon writes:
Prediction: This same-sex marriage issue is predicated on the belief that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual, instead nature made them that way without having a choice in the matter. Well, may be so, but that will likely change soon. I'm reasonably confident that either genetic therapy or some other kind of treatment will emerge to reverse homosexuality back to the standard venue.
I truly hope you're making a joke. Seriously, this may very well be one of the most insulting things I have ever read here.
Hoot Mon writes:
Because then gays and lesbians will finally have a choice in their own sexuality and they won't be able to blame it on nature anymore.
"to blame it on Nature anymore?" "blame!" Can I "blame it on nature" for you being a bigoted ass?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Fosdick, posted 01-23-2008 12:08 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024