|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I still want a different word for 'gay marriage' | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Do you think its a bit shaky to just lump the word gay into the already existing marriage laws?
Heheheh... take a look at the law books for any state, even those related to marriage issues alone. Allowing gays to marry won't make it any more lumpier than it already is. People have a point when they say if people really want to defend the concept of marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.
Don't you think there is a better way?
Yes, and berb has already answered it. We've had a lot of back and forth on it and I definitely agree blank civil unions are the best answer, with people holding their own religious services as they see fit. I think you replied to him to ask what would happen to things currently addresses to "marriage"? They laws could simply recognize all mention of marriage in other laws to apply to civil unions, and all previous marriage certificates to be equal to civil union certs. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
holmes writes me:
quote: They will, one way or another. Seems to me the solution would be to designate one party as the legal equivalent of a maternal parent. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You see, I don't really care to deny gay people rights nor if they get rights. I just don't like the liberal, and careless, approach of calling everything marriage when there are a lot of laws with marriage written into them them that were considering only heterosexual marriages when they were written.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
I would have waited quite a bit longer before I accused you of being homophobic about it. You seemed to me to be reaching for a fair solution so I proposed one. I'm delighted you liked it.
W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
In Loving they could very well point... Ah, sorry. I thought you were pointing to a "nobody's being denied a right someone else has" argument. I'm doing this at work, occasionally in a hurry... that paragraph of your post got a bit rushed, and I got the meaning wrong. For that, I honestly apologize. Regardless, I'm not aware of any official codification of marriage as man/woman in the US government. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that why DOMA and such are being introduced? To provide that codification?
Uh, you essentially just tried to bring hypocrisy in as an issue yourself. Whenever I bring hypocrisy into an argument, it's to show a person that their line of reasoning is wrong. Given your history on this board, I didn't think you'd be bringing up polygamy and child marriage to show that the reasoning behind them was wrong.
If you could be shown to be a hypocrite, and argued for ability to enforce such hypocrisy, then CS could argue for that same ability. True. Fair enough.
Yeah, we don't have to get into it as we can use more obvious examples like polygamy and incest. Okay. I have no problem with polygamy and incest. The latter gimme the jibblies, but that's no reason to deny it to people.
However I will note that minors are not prohibited from entering contracts with the consent of their parents, that is all except marriage contracts. True.
I'd also add that isn't really comparable with restrictions on voting, or things like driving. Those are restrictions on freedoms where the activity directly effects the well being of others. That is not the same for marriage. *shrugs* Okay, replace it with the drinking age. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given. Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Seems to me the solution would be to designate one party as the legal equivalent of a maternal parent.
I agree, but then that brings us back to the same kinds of issues you brought up as a possible problem for polygamists. I guess I never understand the arguments that having to do such a thing (create new legal definitions to cover a new situation) should be considered a bar to any freedom. Is it that people are so stupid they can't come up with a proper solution? If that's not the case then go ahead with the freedom and we'll deal with legal solution. Looks like we're getting CS to accept civil unions... ahhhhhh, solutions. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would have waited quite a bit longer before I accused you of being homophobic about it. Shit....the typical liberal attitude is that if I don't agree with them on gay marriage then I hate gay people. They're really annoying. (ABE: the liberals, that is) Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I guess I never understand the arguments that having to do such a thing (create new legal definitions to cover a new situation) should be considered a bar to any freedom. I don't get it either!
Looks like we're getting CS to accept civil unions Its not soley from you guys but you are helping
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Try to be patient with them, CS. If you had jumped into one of these gay marriage threads soon after the last election I'd have bitten your head off from the first post. We gays were demonized mercilessly by right-wingers during that campaign and our nerves were raw (not all of the right-wingers of course, there are the odd Neil Boortz's around, but they didn't speak up much). Some of us just associated any opposition as coming straight from a Santorum-type bigot. It took a while to get over it, and some of us still haven't gotten over it. So please, just be patient.
W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Regardless, I'm not aware of any official codification of marriage as man/woman in the US government. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that why DOMA and such are being introduced?
On the state level there are some (can't remember number) which codify marriage as man/woman. On the Fed level I don't think there are any marriage laws per se, but there are laws which relate to those that are married and tend to be written with a concept of man/woman. DOMA was meant to assure the the Fed gov't would not be forced to accept any state or foreign gay marriages, as well as protect other states from having to do the same.
The latter gimme the jibblies, but that's no reason to deny it to people.
Heheheh... okay I'm gonna give ya the needle. If anyone said gays give them the jibblies, would you consider them a homophobe? I bring this up only because it has been brought up elsewhere as a question. In any case you made it sound cute. Jibblies. Yessir I like it.
*shrugs* Okay, replace it with the drinking age.
Heheheh... kids can drink with the permission of their parents. Remember in some churches kids don't just get grape juice, they drink BLOOD!!!... oh, I meant wine. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
We gays were demonized mercilessly by right-wingers during that campaign and our nerves were raw
What is your opinion of "log cabin" republicans? And if you know much about them, what is their proposed solutions for gay marriage, as well as dealing with the far right of their party? I don't know much about them myself, but always wondered how they could stomach the party. I'm not sure if Cheney's kid was considered one or not, but I know I couldn't stomach her. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
holmes asks me:
quote: Oh God, where do I begin!?! I suppose by saying that I've voted republican in the past myself, but that was long ago and it's not likely to happen again any time soon. They claim to stand absolutely in favor of gay marriage. Some of them, like Andrew Sullivan (although he abandoned them last election and voted for Kerry), are quite articulate in arguing the case. In fact, it was Sullivan who was the first I remember making a strong case for gay marriage. It was in a piece for Time magazine back when Clinton had taken office and was pushing for gays in the military. Sullivan argued, quite persuasively, that marriage should come first. Once that was accomplished, he felt that military service and other equality issues would fall into place over time with little resistance. I think their numbers have dwindled since 2004, but I don't know for sure. I don't pay much attention to them, although I do check Sullivan's blog from time to time. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
although he abandoned them last election and voted for Kerry
Well that may go to show that the guy was actually a conservative. No one that voted for Bush in 2004 voted conservative. Kerry was closer to that traditional platform.
Sullivan argued, quite persuasively, that marriage should come first. Once that was accomplished, he felt that military service and other equality issues would fall into place over time with little resistance.
I'd have liked to see that argument. I don't understand it myself. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
holmes writes me:
quote: Yeah, I wish I'd saved it. But you know how magazines are, you read 'em and toss 'em. It was a kind of "other side of the mountain" argument, as I recall. Sullivan felt that marriage would be the hardest mountain of all to climb, but that once we'd climbed it we'd have only to go downhill from there. W.W.E.D.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Hmm. Sounds like another reason to be for gay marriage -- to make it easier to get around stupid and ridiculous laws.
Okay, I'll be quiet now. Edited by Chiroptera, : Included missing quote. "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024