What will become of marriage?

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

Isn't THAT the pot calling the kettle black?!

---

Do you really want to go there with me, schraf? I didn't realize you were still smarting from when I slapped you down regarding your ingrained sexism.But to answer your question directly, no, it isn't. I never claimed to be diplomatic.What's the line? Oh, yes: I'm not good. I'm not nice. I'm just right.In fact, that song holds a lot for holmes to learn about his precious "diplomacy":No, of course, what really matters is the blame.
Somebody to blame.
Fine, if that's the thing you enjoy
Placing the blame
If that's the aim
Give me the blame.Just give me the boy.See, holmes seems to think that someone who truly believes in equality can be "alienated" by strong and insistent demands by those who are disenfranchised. Not later. Not "when society is ready for it." Now. Right now. Anything less is unacceptable.And if someone gets upset because they are faced with a demand to give up something that costs them nothing, then they really weren't interested in granting it in the first place. While it's true that all Republicans but one voted for DOMA (the lone exception being Gunderson...who's gay), let us not forget that the vast majority of Democrats voted for it, too, and it was signed by a Democratic president. In the current round, let us not forget that Kerry didn't support full equality, either.The Democrats talk a good game about wanting equality for those who aren't straight, but they don't really believe it. In their heart of hearts, the Democratic party is just as homophobic as the Republican. At best, they really wish gay people would just go away so that they wouldn't have to think about it.How do you propose to get people who only pay lip service to equality to actually start walking the walk? They think they already are. How do you get somebody to recognize that they've made a mistake without pointing out that they made it? How do you expect them to ever change their ways if you continually accept their pathetic excuses for why they violated the very principles they are supposed to be upholding?The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That requires somebody to squeak. You'll forgive me if I don't care that it hurts your ears to hear it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

We're not in disagreement at all. My main effort is to remove the bizarre notion that there is a "gay gene", because that really has connotations that go beyond the reality of genetics. In other words I want to clear up that misunderstanding you were talking about. Actually my statement does fit, but I guess I should have been more clear. Note that I said that because twins are not 100% the same, meant genes were not the cause. I was making a distinction between a mere factor and a cause. A cause to me is "if X then Y", not "if X and then a bunch more things then Y."You are correct, and I hoped I had made it clear in the rest of that post that I did feel it could be a factor, though I do question its strength as a factor. I see suggestions that it could, but nothing positive.Given that hormonal environments are equally suggested, we may find out one day that it is actually a gene that the mothers carry themselves for the creation of their reproductive environment (womb and all) which has a greater determinant for a child's orientation, than a gene passed on to the child. If it was that low, then I would not agree. I would say it is indicative that there may be genetic factors, but we cannot tell where they would lie, and if we are not witnessing a connection that we just do not understand yet.Let's say I am a critic of twin studies, as there seems to be a belief that they can automatically suggest something about genetics. I only trust such a connection, if the studies are wholly twins separated at birth and live in distinctly different environments. And even then you have only reduced it to genes and hormones, not genes alone. Exactly. And the degree that genes play may be quite miniscule in some cases.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Some delicate soul who could not actually defend his position and so resorted to strawmen and ad hominems, the latter ironically undercutting his own position, responds to someone who called him on being inconsistent... Holmes does not think this at all. It seems that way to people who wish to create strawmen so that they need not discuss my actual position."Strong and insistent" is fine. I never said that would alienate anyone. I would think that would rally people as humans tend to like shows of heroism and strength.It is equivocation to say that "any act I do because I feel strongly about something" automatically counts as "strong and insistent."1) One can be shrill and so unable to be listened to in the first place,
2) one can be annoying and so likely to be ignored even if one can be listened to,
3) one can make unnecessary offensive statements about the very people one is trying to rally to a cause,
4) one can in a state of hubris pretend to be everything that one's enemy makes one out to be,
5) one can lie or in some other way act hypocritically and so make one's sincerity suspect.It is always possible to lose followers for the best positions. A person may suggest that that means those who left weren't really dedicated followers, but that is sour grapes. Or at the very least it is a defense mechanism meant to assuage one's guilt for having possibly made an error.As soon as one believes "they are with us or against us" and nothing can change that fact, one is already commited to a needless war against one's friends.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes responds to me...I think...he still hasn't figured out how to use the "Reply" button when responding to me....

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nice lie about why you don't use the reply button to me, by the way.

---

​

Lie?

---

Yes, lie. Since when does you not wanting to deal with me have anything to do with you making everybody else's life easier by using the correct reply button when responding to me?

quote:

---

You really have had multiple posts

---

Then what's your excuse this time? There was only one post for you to respond to and still you managed to neglect to use the appropriate reply button.But in the end, your claim is a lie. While it is true that I visit this board sporadically which results in spurts of replies from me, it is not true that you decide to respond to all of them in a single post. Do you really want me to go back into the archives to show your responses fixated on a single post?You lied, holmes. Get over it. The only reason you're doing this is because you don't like me. Grow up.

quote:

---

you may notice the posts of mine usually contain replies to different posts of yours

---

Yet another lie. What's your excuse for this one? There was only one post to respond to.

quote:

---

I asked you nicely not to hit the direct reply button to my posts, yet you do and it annoys me.

---

Another lie. You didn't request that I refrain from using the reply button. Instead, you demanded that I never respond to a post of yours again. As I pointed out the last time we went round this, I will respond to any and all posts I wish. You are perfectly free to ignore any and all posts you wish. Grow up.The threading function of the board is more important. What you want is immaterial. It is simply polite and appropriate to link back to the post you are responding to. We continually remind the newbies of this. And yet you, a seasoned poster, have decided to throw a hissy fit simply because I got your goat.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yep...gotta start a quote file on you, too.

---

​

Neither of those quotes criticized gay people, they criticized activists.

---

Gay activists. Are they not people?

quote:

---

Indeed there were some straights among the activists who were alienating potential allies.

---

Right. And we believe that you were really talking about them.Now, will you please respond to the actual legal complications I have presented to you? Yes, yes, we all know you claim that there aren't any, but we all know that's a lie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How does one compromise true equality and still achieve true equality?

---

​

What is true equality based on?

---

Legally? Equal treatment under the law. Separate contracts necessarily require different treatment. Contracts that contain distinct language necessarily require different treatment.Take a look at Vermont. Despite the fact that it was legally mandated that same-sex and mixed-sex contracts be equal, they're not. So much for your claim that if we just mandate that they be the same that they will be the same.

quote:

---

You have yet to give one example of how gays could be hurt through differential treatment based on the CUs I mentioned

---

Incorrect. I showed you how the law will necessarily treat them differently precisely because they are different contracts with different words used. The law is based upon words. There is no such thing as a "synonym" in the law. If you don't call it the exact same thing, then it isn't the exact same thing and you have necessarily declared it to be something different.Again, take a look at Vermont. Despite the legal mandate that CUs and marriages be the same, they're not. And why should they? They're not the same thing. If they were, then they would be called the same thing.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So the SCOTUS merely asserted?

---

​

No, you asserted that the quote was applicable to what I was discussing. It wasn't.

---

And your justification for this was what? Oh, that's right: Your mere assertion. Well, hell. If it's good enough for you, why isn't it good enough for me?

quote:

---

Actually I have given examples of why your statement that no two contracts with different names can be equal if a law specifically makes the synonymous is just an assertion on your part.

---

No, you didn't. You simply asserted it. I pointed out that the legal standard doesn't recognize that. It would help if you could provide a legal case where the law ever recognized a synonym.Your attempts to claim that driver's licenses and business licenses were examples fell flat precisely because the law doesn't treat them the same. A C-class driver's license does not allow you to operate a motorcycle. You seem to think that there is a legal contract called a "driver's license." There isn't. There are a bunch of contracts that allow you to operate various types of motor vehicles. The fact that the common vernacular lumps them all into the phrase "driver's license" means nothing with regard to the law.As I pointed out to you directly and which you ignored, let's see you claim the equality of "driver's license" when the cops pull you over on your motorcycle and you pull out your car license.And your business example couldn't hold up, either. There's a reason why a sole proprietorship is different from an LLC and both are different from an incorporated entity.As I asked you directly and which you ignored, if you decide to sue a sole proprietorship, are you allowed to go after the owner's property or are you restricted to just the property of the company? For an incorporated entity, you are restricted to just the assets of the corporation. That's part of the reason that companies decide to incorporate: It separates the business from the people who run it.Let's see you claim contractual equality when somebody decides to go after your home in your sole proprietorship.These contracts are different. They are not called the same thing in the law despite the fact that people call them "business licenses." They are separate and the rules are different for each one. If they were the same thing, they would be called the same thing, but they're not.What you need to do, holmes, is show an example where two contracts are declared by the law to be the same and have identical rights and responsibilities.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And you are a bright, shining example of that.

---

​

The irony is overwhelming.

---

Which is bizarre since there is no irony.As I reminded schrafinator, where did I make a claim of diplomacy? I seem to recall stating right off the bat that I wasn't being diplomatic: Message 183 of this thread: Now, what do you think this might mean? Hmmm...it could mean that it requires being undiplomatic, calling a spade a spade, and refusing to accept the lame excuses of those who are merely claiming to be for full equality but are unwilling to actually do what it takes to make it a reality.

quote:

---

I say people alienated potential allies, to which you say that's not possible.

---

Indeed. If they were actual allies, they would be alienated by those demanding equality. They would be among them because they actually want to achieve equality. If they hesitate, then they aren't really allies and it would be impossible to alienate them because they were never on the side of equality to begin with.It's impossible to push somebody over the line if they are already over it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I never said you did. Are you ignorant of Alberto Gonzales? He's the White House Counsel that is currently being considered for Attorney General. He is the one that called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." It's a topical reference. I am comparing the ludicrousness of your claims to his.

---

​

Heheheh... uh yeah, I figured that connection out when I read it. That is why I said I did not say quaint.

---

If you understood the reference and the point of it, why did you feign ignorance? Why are you behaving as if I were actually quoting you rather than simply comparing your attitude to his?Seems you are one of those who can't be happy unless you're upset.

quote:

---

But I'm glad you restated why you were using the term you did, so that everyone can see it was not only a strawman, but an attempted guilt by association.

---

No, not guilt by association. Guilt by direct action. Your attitude and his are identical. He callously calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint." You sneeringly call a founding principle of equal rights jurisprudence a "mantra." You are both dismissing a fundamental concept of justice and liberty as something that is beneath contempt. If he's a monster when he does it, what gets you off the hook when you do it? If you don't like being called a monster and having that declaration justified by comparing you to a monster in order to see that your actions are those of a monster, perhaps you should reconsider what you're doing. You seem to want to have right to be a fool without anybody calling you on it lest your feelings get hurt.Grow up.

quote:

---

It is your assertion that a person will only see marriage or only see civil union

---

No, not a person. The law. The law will only see one or the other. Take a look at Vermont. Despite the fact that it was legally mandated that civil unions and marriages be identical, they're not. When a same-sex couple comes to the courthouse, they won't be treated as if they were getting a marriage license. They will be treated as if they were getting a civil union and have to live up to the standards of a civil union contract, not a marriage contract. Those standards are different.So much for simply declaring them to be the same being sufficient to make them the same.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There is no such thing as a "synonym" in the law.

---

​

Even if there had never been, it could certainly come a part of law.

---

Incorrect. Does the word "precedent" mean anything to you? The entire history of jurisprudence in this country is based upon the words used in the law. If they are not the same words, then they are necessarily not the same thing. The idea that the law can declare a synonym is on its face invalid. The law cannot do such a thing. That's the point behind the law: Words have meanings. If the words are different, then you mean something different.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I am saying that the government will impose different standards upon those wishing to enter a civil union compared to those that wish to get married.

---

​

They can't if the CU law is created such that all regulations pertaining to one pertain to the other with the exception of gender of licensees.

---

You mean like in Vermont?The standards of those wishing to enter a civil union are not the same as those wishing to enter a marriage despite the law being created such that all regulations pertaining to one pertain to the other. So much for legal mandation of synonymity being sufficient.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Take a look at Vermont. The rules are different despite the legal mandate that they be the same. So much for your claim of equality.

---

​

Yes, take Vermont as an example of how CUs can be improved so that they are more equal.

---

Why sho', massa! Yo promiss tuh beatst me only whunst a week and I's be yo slave!The goal is equality, holmes. Anything less is failure. The fact that you find the differences trivial is immaterial.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Exactly. Since CUs are broken marriages, gay people are prevented from marrying at all.

---

​

CUs are not broken marriages

---

But the mandate was to give same-sex couples all the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. Civil unions don't achieve that standard. Ergo, they're broken marriages.

quote:

---

no way comparable to a broken drinking fountain that prevents a black from drinking.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?If the water fountain doesn't work and you are prevented from using the one that works, how is that not preventing someone from drinking?What part of "they are not equal" do you not understand? What part of "a same-sex couple will be prevented from getting a civil union where an identical mixed-sex couple would be allowed to get married" do you not understand?

quote:

---

Yes in the end gays would not be married, but then it would remain a semantic issue alone.

---

But that's what the law is: Semantics. The words used are important. If you don't use the same words, then you are necessarily saying something different. There is no such thing as a synonym in the law.

quote:

---

People that do not like gays can act on the genders of the signatories in social environments,

---

Irrelevant. We're not talking about who you invite to your next dinner party. We're talking about presenting yourself before the law.

quote:

---

and in legal environments they can shift rights and benefits normally associated with marriage to other characteristics that would be found in straight, rather than gay marriages.

---

How? If there is nothing in the contract that mentions the sex of the people involved and every single word in the contract is absolutely identical, how do you distinguish between a same-sex and a mixed-sex marriage?The only way to do that would be to come up with a contingency that looks at the sex of a couple above and beyond the fact that they're married. Since there is no way to distinguish a same-sex from a mixed-sex marriage (due to the fact that the contracts are identical down to every letter), you'd have to come up with a separate contract for which a requisite is a marriage contract. It couldn't be something that comes along with marriage since to make it part of the marriage contract would mean that both mixed-sex and same-sex couples would get it since the marriage contracts are identical in every word and detail. There would be some married couples with two contracts and some with only one.True, this would mean that we would have to fight the same essential battle over again, but there are many fronts on the fight for equality regarding sexual orientation. Just because there are equal marriage rights doesn't mean there are equal employment, housing, or education rights.

quote:

---

It suggests shifting tax breaks over to children conceived and not on marital status alone.

---

And gay people can't have children?

quote:

---

Some things can be made equal to other things under law, even with different names and circumstances. You don't even need a MARRIAGE CONTRACT!

---

Incorrect. A "common law" marriage is an actual marriage. Even though you didn't actually sign a piece of paper, you are treated as if you had. You are now subject to all the rights and responsibilities that go along with the contract.

quote:

---

Gays are different than 14 year olds, but they are also different than straights.

---

Non sequitur.The argument is that a same-sex couple has no differences with respect to mixed-sex couples in the context of marriage. How does this possibly connect to age? A person's sex does not change as he ages.

quote:

---

Any group of person is different than any other group of person.

---

You're not that stupid, holmes. It is trivially correct that every mixed-sex couple is unique. But the marriage contract entered into by all mixed-sex couples are identical. The things that make the couple distinct are irrelevant with respect to the contract.It's called "abstraction," holmes.

quote:

---

If you think 14 year olds will have problems in a marriage, that are different than the problems gays will have in marriage, I am uncertain what they are besides your assertion.

---

Non sequitur.We're talking about the distinction of sex, holmes, not age. People don't change sex as they age, do they? Are you saying that a same-sex couple that is under age would have different problems regarding the fact that they are under age than a mixed-sex couple? What does the sex of the participants have to do with their age?

quote:

---

And conveniently enough, you dropped the "cousins" part. Gee I wonder why?

---

Incorrect. What did you think I meant by "genetic proximity"? Remember what I said about "abstraction"?At any rate, it is identical. A person's genetic relationship to another person doesn't change based upon his sex, does it? Surely you aren't saying that simply because we call someone a "niece," that somehow changes the genetic proximity than because we aren't calling her a "nephew"?

quote:

---

Let's return to what I was talking about. You claimed that since marriages are known and defined between all states, they are all transferable.

---

No, I didn't. I said that given the typical example of a marriage, avoiding the irrelevant issues such as age and genetic proximity since they have nothing to do with sex, marriages are all transferable between states. We can find an example of a mixed-sex couple that is considered married in all states. That is the standard. We now change the sex of the people involved so that they are of the same sex. We then try to come up with a reason why if this marriage were considered valid in all states before, it would not be considered valid after.To start treating this couple as if they were underage or close relatives is to compare apples with oranges. We are talking about sex and only about sex. The problems of a mixed-sex couple transferring a marriage to another state because they are under age or are cousins has nothing to do with the sex of the people involved unless you are saying that a person changes sex as they age or will somehow stop being cousins if they were boy-girl rather than girl-girl.

quote:

---

If "similar problems" is the source of identifying groups to accept, then infertile couples could be denied marriage licenses according to you as they would not be typical and share the problems of mixed-sex fertile couples.

---

But that's just it: Infertile couples are allowed to get married. Therefore, fertility is irrelevant with regard to marriage.Try to stick to the way things are, not some fantasy world you would like to live in.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously claiming that the typical marriage in the US is betwen 14-year-old first cousins?

---

​

That was not my statement at all.

---

But that's what you want to compare it to despite being shown that such issues are irrelevant.

quote:

---

My argument was driving at the fact that "typical" does not mean jack as far as whether something is real and should not be used as the reason for something being accepted legally.

---

But it's irrelevant. What makes you think a same-sex couple who is under age or cousins would have any different problems with regard to the fact that they are under age or cousins when compared to an identical, mixed-sex couple?

quote:

---

In any case, if the basis is typical then gays are out altogether. At max, you'd have how much of the population getting married as gays? 10%. maybe?

---

And that is relevant, why? Jews are even less a population in the US and we don't seem to have a problem with them getting married, do we?

quote:

---

And the fact that you quote current demographics regarding age of marriage is irrelevant... isn't it?

---

No. The point, which you are stubbornly refusing to deal with, is that age and sex are disconnected. One's sex does not change as one ages. Questions of age don't help us when dealing with questions of sex.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that the laws that prohibit an underage couple from transferring their marriage from one state to another due to their age would suddenly become null and void if the couple were a legally married same-sex couple rather than a mixed-sex couple?

---

​

No.

---

Then why are you harping on it?

quote:

---

I am saying age, orientation, etc etc are all different and arbitrary qualifiers states and nations use to determine marriage requirements.

---

But they are disconnected. They may all be arbitrary, but the justifications for each are distinct.

quote:

---

Strawman and assertion, again. Not sure how many times I have to state I am actually for CUs for everyone

---

As many times as it takes for you to remember that I pointed out that whether we call it "marriage" or "civil union" or "rutabaga" is irrelevant. The problem is not the specific word that is used but rather that whatever word is chosen must be applied to all couples.It's called "abstraction," holmes.

quote:

---

I am only pointing out that it is a viable legal compromise.

---

If it isn't full equality, then it isn't viable.Separate but equal is not full equality.There is no such thing as a synonym in the law. By using a separate term, you necessarily declare that the two are legally distinct.Therefore, your "third option" is not a viable, legal compromise. There can be no "compromise" with regard to equality. You either have equality or you don't.

quote:

---

Obviously the Vermont CUs are not the same.

---

But they were legally mandated to be the same. How did they end up being different?

quote:

---

Remember... they are the same legal entity

---

No, they're not. They're not called the same thing. They have different standards for the people who enter into them. And only the state of Vermont can dissolve a civil union because no other state has anything to equate it to. They contain none of the federal rights that Vermont marriage carries. How can they possibly be considered the same legal entity when they are treated differently?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So in this "reality" of yours, where do you propose this claim that "civil union is equivalent to marriage" be declared?

---

​

In each states law books,

---

So we need to fight this battle in over 50 jurisdictions?

quote:

---

It can also be put on federal law books.

---

No, it can't. The feds don't issue marriage licenses.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why? Loving v. Virginia wasn't done state by state.

---

​

Huh? Federal legislators wrote it for the states?

---

"Legislators"? No. The SCOTUS declared that Virginia could not criminalize someone on the basis of race. It did not tell Virginia how to write its marriage laws. Instead, it simply said that the US Constitution prevents them from treating people differently on the basis of race.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The federal government doesn't issue marriage licenses. And it has no power to force the states to create civil unions. What it can do, however, is force the states to provide the same contract to all.

---

​

Uh yeah. This does not counter anything I said.

---

Incorrect. You said: They don't have the power to do that. Just as DOMA is, in and of itself, unconstitutional (it violates the 14th Amendment as well as the 10th), the federal government does not have the power to tell the states to treat civil unions as synonymous with marriage.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if you live in a state that doesn't provide a civil union, what good is that?

---

​

That's where federally mandating that all are given the same contract would come in.

---

But the feds can't force the states to provide civil unions. That, like marriage, is a right of the states.

quote:

---

My statement remains the same. If you were married or had a CU which is legally synonymous according to your nation, and moved to the Netherlands my guess is on the box that you would check for what type of relationship you are in when filling out the residence permit, it would be married.

---

You could try that, but since the contract is not a marriage contract, why would the Dutch government agree that it is?

quote:

---

But again, I only went through the process.

---

You have a Vermont civil union? You tried to get it recognized by the Dutch government?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not according to my reading of Dutch law. Please look over the Hague Convention, Article 6.

---

​

I have no idea what law book you are reading, but the Dutch government cannot tell a state within the US that you are no longer married.

---

They most certainly do! International Divorce in NetherlandsDid you bother to do any research at all before opening your mouth? Did you bother to look up the Hague Convention as I suggested? If you aren't even going to bother to look up the statutes involved, what is the point of attempting discussion?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And the point you are missing is that we can avoid this by simply going all the way. It took 100 years before we came even close to living up to the promise of racial equality that we fought a war over. Why can't we learn the lesson that the only way to be equal is to be completely equal. There is no "compromise."

---

​

How did I miss this?

---

By promoting a "separate but equal" response.

quote:

---

Show me where I said anything that indicated this?

---

You claim this "third option" of having both marriage and civil union and thinking that simply declaring them to be the same will actually be legally valid. It has never worked before, so why would this time be any different?

quote:

---

This is where I realize you are just bickering to bicker. You and others have been using the phrase "separate but equal" and I clearly understood that this was a negative phrase, which actually means they won't be equal.

---

So deal with it. Please explain how this time will be different from every other attempt to maintain a separation between equivalent entities that doesn't result in inequality.

quote:

---

Now I used it to refer to a situation where something was not equal to another, only to point out that it still works well,

---

"Works well" is not equal, now is it? Why do we have to wait until somebody has to make a stink in order to get the full equality we could have created to begin with? Are you saying that because oppression is rare it is sufficient to leave it in the jurisprudence?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why? The Dutch courts can dissolve a mixed-sex marriage entered into in another state.

---

​

That's funny when they told me they can't, and they said the US can't either if we had one here and moved there.

---

Who were "they" and why did they lie to you? Did you not read the Hague Conventions as I suggested you to?I can get you in touch with a legal organization that can do precisely what you claim you were told couldn't be done. Here are some case studies about difficulties that can be faced regarding international couples divorcing: 'International Clients': Beware!Why is it that in "Scenario No. 1: The Netherlands," we read about "Some time later, your shocked and furious client informs you that his wife has instituted suit for divorce in The Netherlands, and has asserted that, in her country, the basic legal matrimonial property regime is that of universal community of property, which covers everything that the husband owns"?I thought you said you couldn't file for divorce in the Netherlands off of a marriage contracted in the US. And yet, here is a law firm that will counsel you about just that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are three contracts in the Netherlands: Marriage, registered partnership, and cohabitation agreement.

---

​

Are you implying there are actually four? Marriage, gay Marriage, registered partnership, and cohabitation agreement?

---

Since a same-sex couple does not have the same rights as a mixed-sex couple, then yes.

quote:

---

You must be because according to your whole argument if it says marriage then it must have the same rights, whether for gays or not.

---

Incorrect. My argument is that in order for the contract to be the same, it must be the same in every single detail, including the name of the contract. You have committed the logical error of affirming the consequent. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Just because two contracts have the same title doesn't make them equivalent.Equivalency requires that everything be equivalent. What part of "everything" do you not understand?

quote:

---

As it is I have not heard of a gay marriage separate from what is called the registered partnership... but I suppose I will admit that the handy people here may have brushed over that option since we are not gay. I will go and look up the details just to be sure. In any case gays do use RSs and so do straights, despite not being wholly equal to marriage.

---

That's my point: A registered partnership is not a marriage. You don't get all the rights and responsibilities in a marriage when you get a registered partnership.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you think you're going to get the same legal treatment for a registered partnership as you are for a marriage? They're not the same contract.

---

​

Duh. That misses my point.

---

But that's the entire point. As I said before, if you feel triumphant for having made an irrelevant point, go right ahead.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But you're irrelevant. Those who are complacent and don't want full equality don't see anything wrong with it. This fight is not about you.

---

​

I want full equality and I'm not complacent.

---

You're trying to get married to another man? If you're not, then your personal experience is irrelevant. We're talking about same-sex marriage, not polygamy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Please indicate where I have said anything at all in this discussion about whether 14-year-old first cousins should or should not be able to have their marriage transfer from state to state.

---

​

You called such marriages "bizarre examples" and "outliers" in context to why certain marriages are not transferred from state to state, suggesting that because of that status they are not transferred for a more reasonable issue than gay marriages.

---

Incorrect. I directly stated that their status is atypical and irrelevant. As I directly stated, any issues that come up regarding such couples will not go away because of the sex of the participants. Any argument you make regarding why a couple who is under age should be afforded full legal protections as an over age couple will apply equally to a same-sex couple as to a mixed-sex couple.Are you saying that a perons's sex changes as they age?

quote:

---

I am not going to bother looking through threads to find all the quotes you have made against incest and underage relationships, much less marriage.

---

If you can't support your argument, then perhaps you shouldn't make it.It wouldn't be the first time you've lied about me.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me...I think...he seems to be incapable of using the correct "reply" button the way we ask of the newbies...and with no fallacious excuse of saying he's combining responses of various posts since there was only one post to respond to:

quote:

---

quote:

---

See, holmes seems to think that someone who truly believes in equality can be "alienated" by strong and insistent demands by those who are disenfranchised. Not later. Not "when society is ready for it." Now. Right now. Anything less is unacceptable.

---

​

Holmes does not think this at all.

---

Message 150 of "Harm in Homosexuality?": Same message: If you can't remember your own words....

quote:

---

1) One can be shrill and so unable to be listened to in the first place,

---

In which case one cannot be alienated because you weren't listening.

quote:

---

2) one can be annoying and so likely to be ignored even if one can be listened to,

---

In which case one cannot be alienated because you weren't listening.

quote:

---

3) one can make unnecessary offensive statements about the very people one is trying to rally to a cause,

---

"Unnecessary"? When was it agreed that the comments were unnecessary? Could you give an example of an "unnecessary" comment?Scenario discarded as nonexistant.

quote:

---

4) one can in a state of hubris pretend to be everything that one's enemy makes one out to be,

---

In which case one cannot be alienated because you are already against the proposition. Equality is for everyone, even those you don't like, is it not?

quote:

---

5) one can lie or in some other way act hypocritically and so make one's sincerity suspect.

---

When did lies enter into it? Are you suggesting that the fight for equal rights for gay people has involved lies on the part of those who advocate for equality? Could you be specific?Scenario discarded as nonexistent.

quote:

---

It is always possible to lose followers for the best positions.

---

Oh, agreed, but it isn't because those fighting for the best positions "alienated" anybody. It's because those that claim to have been "alienated" weren't really for the position in the first place.

quote:

---

A person may suggest that that means those who left weren't really dedicated followers, but that is sour grapes.

---

Right. The Democratic party was so for equality for gays when they passed DOMA and failed to pass ENDA. They were so for equality for gays when they passed Don't Ask/Don't Tell/Don't Pursue.The claim of sour grapes has nothing to do with sullenness and everything to do with having tasted the grapes and determined them to be sour.If you cannot accept the direct actions of the populace to be indicative of their opinion, what else is there?

quote:

---

As soon as one believes "they are with us or against us" and nothing can change that fact, one is already commited to a needless war against one's friends.

---

Friends don't discriminate against friends.Friends don't vote for legislation that discriminates against their friends.So if your "friends" are actively working against you, how can they possibly be considered "friends"? If your "friends" really are against you, how is it anything but a "with us or against us" scenario?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I can't believe I missed this:holmes writes:

quote:

---

Just to let you know, marriage is not a right

---

Incorrect. In Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS declared marriage to be a fundamental right: You simply have no idea what you're talking about, holmes.And by the way, also from the Loving v. Virginia decision: Does anybody think that the claim of civil unions being "equal" to marriage would be able to survive given this declaration from the SCOTUS? While this statement is about race, is not its fundamental essence equally applicable to sex?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rosie Cotton writes:

quote:

---

WHAT PART OF "I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

---

Two parts, at least:1) The part where we're supposed to care about what you think.
2) The part where your personal squick factor was declared to be sufficient basis for law.There are plenty of people who "don't think it's a good idea" for people of different races or different religions to get married. Is that sufficient to go against every precept of equality and justice we have inherited?

quote:

---

What I mean by marriage is holy, is that it isn't regarded as a joke

---

You mean like Britney Spears' regard for marriage? Or Elizabeth Taylor's? Or Mickey Rooney's? Or Newt Gingrich?How does same-sex marriage turn marriage into a joke? Wouldn't someone who values the sanctity of marriage want to encourage people to get married?By the way: In those countries that offer same-sex marriage, the divorce rate among same-sex couples is orders of magnitude smaller than the divorce rate among mixed-sex couples. It's less than 10% for gay couples while over 50% for straight.It would seem that gay couples take marriage much more seriously than straight ones.

quote:

---

In most states, homosexuals can go to town hall, and get a marriage license

---

Incorrect. They can't get the license at all. That's the point of the various lawsuits regarding same-sex marriage: It starts by a same-sex couple going to the county clerk and requesting a marriage license and being refused. That then gives them standing to file a lawsuit. You can't sue somebody without a cause of action.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rosie Cotton writes:

quote:

---

Washington and New Jersey accept gay marriage.

---

Incorrect.Instead, there are lawsuits in those states that will probably result in a declaration that restricting marriage to mixed-sex couples only is unconstitutional.But it hasn't happened yet.

quote:

---

In fact the city of Seattle has been accepting gay marriage since 1989!

---

Incorrect. Cities don't provide marriage licenses. States do.

quote:

---

Colorado accepts civil unions

---

Incorrect. The only state with a civil union is Vermont (not Connecticut as you previously said). There are other states that have contracts that provide same-sex couples with some of the rights that commonly come along with marriage, but that is not what is meant by "civil union."

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to Rosie Cotton:

quote:

---

You're telling me South Carolina has full-fledged gay marriage? Why do I find that very, very hard to believe?

---

Because it isn't true. I don't know where she's getting her information, but she is very, very wrong. I recently posted information regarding state laws concerning same-sex marriage but I can't seem to find it.South Carolina has a DOMA, passed in 1996.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rosie Cotton writes:

quote:

---

I'm not a psychologist, but on other discussion boards, people have brought up people that were homosexual, went to therapy and were no longer gay.

---

Did it ever occur to you that they were lying? Or misinformed?Yes, there is a lot of people who claim that there are "ex-gays," but actual study of these people who claim to be "ex-gay" find that they aren't really heterosexual at all. They still have attractions to people of the same sex.They're still gay...they're simply suppressing it.In fact, the various "reparative therapy" organizations have tremendous difficulties in keeping their leaders from falling off the wagon. The founders of Exodus fell in love with each other. Jonathan Paulk was caught in a gay bar hitting on other men.There's a reason that these various organizations keep absolutely no records on the success rate of their methods: They simply don't work.Nobody has ever gone into therapy and changed his sexual orientation.

quote:

---

It is only a hypothesis, maybe a theory because I have SOME evidence to support it.

---

No, you don't. The reason the APA has discredited "reparative therapy" is because all the indications show that it doesn't work and actually is quite harmful to the people who undergo it. Many who undergo it eventually commit suicide: They are so hateful of their own feelings and are constantly berated by the people who supposedly love them for having them that they despair and decide that the only way to stop the feelings is to stop living.There is absolutely no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Given that the next few arguments are regarding why I don't hit the direct reply button, and on both sides we agree that I am doing it deliberately, this statement is a lie. As I never said anything along the lines of your second sentence, your first sentence labeling me a liar is still incorrect. You seem to have missed something. In the post where I explained why I had not used the direct reply button I gave you two reasons. Both were reasons I would have hit the general reply button. In cases where the multiple post reason was not applicable the second would have. Vice versa would also have been true.For a guy fixated on looking through archives, are you telling me I have never used the general reply button, especially when responding to multiple posts?Again there is no lie. I admitted from the get go why I would not direct reply to you in any condition, it just so happened that with the first few replies also fit the other condition and I named it as well. Again, if you are hot for looking through archives you will find what actually occurred was that I started by asking you not to reply to my posts at all, then when you refused to do that I asked that you not hit the direct reply button. I don't agree. Productive communication is the most important function of the board. Our history shows a lack of this and so I was desiring to end it. You have not seen fit to be polite and at least refrain from irritating me, and so I will now treat you as I asked to be treated, even if it irritates you.We also continually remind newbies of using assertions, ad hominem attacks, and strawmen. Yet you, a seasoned poster, us all of them as soon as your arguments begin to crumble. That is more of a problem than hitting a general reply instead of a direct reply. This should be pretty easy to understand. I criticized a certain segment of gay marriage activists for specific actions that were counterproductive. Some were gay and some were straight. So yes in criticizing that group, some gay people were criticized.That is not the same as "criticizing gay people", which has a completely different connotation. Your use of it was an attempt to make me look bad through building a false case as if it were my position. The "we" appears to be the beginning of the end of this discussion. It certainly signaled the end of rational discourse last time. There is only you who think I was not inclusive of straight activists, unless you can prove otherwise.In any case what you believe is irrelevant. For the record I am criticizing all activists which used counterproductive methods for gay marriage. If you continue to doubt my position, then that is your personal issue. Yes, it appears a cord has snapped.You go on to repeat the assertions and strawmen I have already done away with. There is nothing new in them, so there is no point in readdressing them. People will believe you or I based on the previous posts.Frankly I am really disappointed that you continue to pretend that the Vermont situation is what I described after I explained how they were different. Within in this statement is the explanation of why I was using it as an analogy. In this analogy a different motor vehicle would be a different type of legal union. The similarity is that they all give one the right to drive. Whether specific vehicles are restricted on different terrain is besides the point as that has nothing to do with the analogy. There is no analogous entity to rush hour traffic and surface conditions in the execution of legal unions. I explained that that was immaterial to the analogy. That is why I ignored it. You are extending the analogies well past their borders. Attachment of assets is not within the licenses. The licenses allow you to operate, that is all. Actually this is incorrect. Just because I do not show this has happened does not make the condition logically or legally impossible. At the founding of this nation, or any state, they begin with no laws on anything, that does not make laws or types of laws impossible.What you need to explain is how a law making two legal entities equivalent under law (by making all regulations which pertain to one pertain to the other, by stating that they are equal legal entities for purposes of gov't benefits, and by stating that in their execution they must be treated as equally important) is impossible. just because those two entities have different names. I see no logical impossibility in the law to create a law for which creates a single entity with more than one nominal category. I am not going to debate the pot-kettle issue, and I wasn't when talking about the irony of your statement. Your position was that people cannot be alienated due to bad diplomacy. Then you say that I am an example of a person alienating someone due to bad diplomacy. If you cannot see the irony in this, well what can I say? This appears to be the rebirth of dark age thinking in the new millenium. It was disputed and refuted centuries ago, and then reproven as worthless during the Nazi, Stalin, and McCarthy regimes. And ironically enough many seem to see the problem when Bush uses it, but don't recognize it in themselves.You appear to have missed something. Allies may become alienated, not by the demand for equality, but by the nature of how it is demanded. In fact you completely reject the mention of alternative solutions as proof of traitorship to your cause.I refused to side with Bush, and I will refuse to side with you on this matter. Diplomacy admits there may be many solutions, even grades of solutions, and that it is possible to win enemies and lose friends based on treatment, rather than theoretical positions. All I said was I didn't say quaint. That was enough to reject the comparison. Would it have made it any better for you to have said I didn't say quaint and am saying so to reject the implied comparison to Gonzales who happens to have nothing to do with this issue? I preserve the above as a testament to someone failing to see his own problems. Despite starting with the claim that he is not using guilt by association, coining instead a new fallacy I guess, he pretty much defines his actions as guilt by association.And again also revealed the need for strawmen. I did not "sneeringly call a founding principle of equal rights jurisprudence a "mantra."" I called your use of a phrase a mantra. It is how you used it and not what it normally represents. Does the phrase "set precedent" mean anything to you? Words can make things synonymous entities, even in law, just as they can make things with the same title different. This statement is a contradiction. There is a difference between creating equal entities with differences in regulation and execution, and creating a truly equivalent entity by making them equal with respect to regulation and execution. My example involves the latter two, Vermont (your favorite strawman) does not. Case closed counselor, move on... I didn't say they were trivial. I said the Vermont CU can act as an example of how to write better CUs in the future. That seems to suggest I don't find them trivial. In one hypothetical world, and in the real state of Vermont, CUs which are nothing like a described... only in name... can indeed be considered broken marriages. But that is a strawman to my position.I think I have a solution. I will call the ones I am talking about State Unions. That way you can't keep treating it the same as the Civil Union they have in vermont. Right. That is my position. If you read what I wrote about that suggestion, you would see that I have already raised that issue myself. They wish to tie money to having children, I guess their next move would be to mothers who have conceived naturally. Witness again, a man incapable of realizing that he is making my point. I said it was marriage, created by law without a contract... thus a law set out that by how one lives with another person can make one's relationship be treated legally synonymous with marriage, despite not entering into the same contractual arrangement as everyone else who actually gets married.It was not the name of their relationship, nor the name of any contract, it was a law creating conditions for equal treatment "as".There is nothing stopping CUs from being treated to the same legal rights and recognitions of marriage. This is not my argument. Your opinion that sex must change is the sole criteria for difference, is noted. No. Actually we are talking about conditions a state may have for denying or accepting a marriage license from another state. A state may decide that the differences in relationship between to same sex people and mixed sex couples, may be significant to deny the marriage, just as they might view the differences between people of lower ages and higher ones.That is a fact. That is how it works. That is all I need to show that I am right about the non-transferability of marriages between states based on name alone. This is not the appropriate question. Given that you consider consenting adults in love is the only criteria, then the real question is does a person's relationship changed based on his genetic relationship? This is called circular reasoning. You are wiping out other appropriate examples by stating they are different than that of gender. Why? Right now typical marriages have everything to do with gender issues. No. That is all you want to talk about. I am discussing criteria for acceptance and denial of transferring marriages. That can be for many reasons, including a nation where they got married as much as age or genetic relationship. You want to turn this into a debate on something other than its origin.You claimed that the title of marriage allows for transference of marriage licenses between entities. I have proven beyond question that this is not true. Your argument that gay marriage would not be untypical is simply foolish and besides the point. Case closed, move on. That was a reductio ad absurdum on your stated position regarding marriage. I am sorry if you could not understand that. I was getting at what you were using to define typical, versus bizarre and outlier. You began to use demographics, not me. That's right. Another indicator that rational debate has ended. I clearly did not state this or mean this. You quote mined just to get something to pretend to be reacting to. This is the first actual catch of a mistake of mine. I accidentally said legislators instead of jurists. Yes they do. The Feds have the power of making CUs treated synonymous to marriage at their level. That is what I said. You are in error if you think I meant at the state level. The feds (judicial system) can force states to provide equal access to rights seen in marriage to everyone. How the states decide to do this could be CU or marriage. The feds could make CUs equal to marriage for treatment at the fed level. If it is the equivalent of a marriage license why wouldn't they? Again, being someone wholly ignorant of Dutch law and processes, you seem to believe that we always have the same forms and entities. We don't and there are ways of treating things that are supposed to be the same between nations as the same. Last call for alcohol! I said I was going through the Dutch legal system so I know it better. The discrepancies and things like that. Since the VT CU is nothing like the SU I am describing it is irrelevant. Have you ever tried? Have you ever asked them how it actually works? No. Strawman. I repeat. They cannot just be "called" equal. They must be made equal, by mandating that all regulations which refer to one refer to the other, and execution of them will be identical. No. That's what I said. To be honest it would not be the first time a dutch official has lied to me or to other dutch officials. Yet the reasoning I have seen is pretty sound.And indeed reading your cite says exactly what I said... I have already stated that you can decide which law takes precedent (gee remember also that this shows marriage ain't the same everywhere).I have also said you can file for divorce anywhere. The problem is that it must go through the court system of wherever your files are currently located to erase your marriage completely.Deal with this Rrhain. You get married in Iowa, then move to the Netherlands and they for some reason do not recognize your divorce, or you go through some proceeding to have them consider you divorced. Unless you run it through the Iowa system in some way, when you return to Iowa you will still be married there. Got it? Note that the above is a mixed national marriage and the issue is property rights of which nation hold. This does not in any way suggest that the Netherlands can force the state of Iowa to say you are no longer married, if that is where you got married. File is different than execute. I said you can file. You may even be able to get documents shifted to here and so run through a court here. I also said that. What you cannot do is have a dutch court unilaterally nix a US marriage document on their own. Actually I already looked it up and posted my own correction as a general reply giving info on the issue.Actually there are only three categories. The fact that gays do not get the same rights in marriage is not due to marriage laws. Whoops, just goes to show that same title and same general laws do not guarantee everything. This is nothing but semantic BS. You can have a lawyer draw up a contract with same names and totally different rules that apply to them. Or create two contracts with different titles and treated the same. I don't even have to give you a specific lawyers address, contact any in the book. Wow, now you can't even remember what you were insulting me about. [qs]You're trying to get married to another man? If you're not, then your personal experience is irrelevant. We're talking about same-sex marriage, not polygamy. [/q]s You are now denying that you said that incestuous or underage marriages were "bizarre" and "outliers", and saying that you said atypical and irrelevant? Do you really need me to point out your post that used that exact language?You are losing it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Stop it, now!

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

Yes, that does mean that you can live without religion, however, things can be made laws because the majority of the people have it in their morals. Even the republic system, if we elected officials that had our values, and the majority of Americans called homosexuality wrong, than same-sex marriage is a gonner. It is just the way it is.Another thing that I'm confused about, is the issue of gay parents that we touched on earlier. This is really confusing me. Someone more experienced in this science correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a very simple conception of reproduction:Me, as an example of a female, I have ovum. I always have had ovum, and I always will have ovum. I will never have sperm.My elder brother, as an example of a male, has sperm. He has not always had sperm, but he does now. He will never have ovum.Two males, betwixt the two of them, have two sperm, but no ovum.Two females, betwixt the two of them, have two ovum, but no sperm.A baby can only be created through one sperm, one egg. So how can two females have children, without a male, or vice versa?If I'm wrong about how the reproduction system works, please explain it to me. That is a very simple explanation, by the way.

The city of Seattle does. I live in Seattle.

quote:

---

If the majority of America wanted to outlaw homosexuality, because that is what they morally believed in, the majority would rule.

---

As others have said, this is the worst nightmare of the Founding Fathers.I only wanted to add a favorite phrase here, which is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are designed specifically to protect the individual's civil rights against the "tyrrany of the majority".