|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Lizard Breath responds to me:
quote: Yeah, right. You know so much about me, why don't you tell me all about my connection to the military. Am I part of a military family? Do I work for the military now? C'mon...you know so much about me, it should be a piece of cake.
quote: But you are obviously threatened or you wouldn't say things like:
I don't want them coming into the schools with their pro gay literature and feeding impressionable young minds Or
I hope there is a protection force there to stop the behavior from infecting the rest of society Or
So I equate their behavior as damageing and distructive both to themselves and to society. You obviously are concerned about it or you wouldn't even give these things a second thought. Here's a question for you: What would you do if another man hit on you? I don't mean in the shower. I mean something like you're at the library and a man comes up to you and asks you out for a cup of coffee. Do you accept the flattery that someone finds you attractive but politely decline or do you feel any sort of hostility or emasculation that another man would do that? Remember...you're the one that said men need to dominate. Thus, if a guy came up to you, that would mean that he thought he could dominate you, right? That he was threatening your masculinity, right?
quote: Then why keep them out? If you cannot form a friendship with another man because he happens to be gay, then you must be threatened by something since it is holding you back.
quote: Um, I'm confused. Perhaps you're not Navy, but I thought the idea was to create an officer and a gentleman no matter what the service, really. Are you seriously saying you are incapable of behaving politely at all times? I think we're back to an original comment of mine: The problem isn't the gay people or the women...it's you. You're the one that needs to be kicked out because you are the one that is destroying unit cohesion. You're the one that is so concerned about what isn't happening that you cannot keep your mind on your job in that you cannot form the perfect trust in your colleagues that is required. You seem to think that if a bully is picking on someone, the solution is to remove the one being picked on as if he was at fault for creating the situation. It's the other way around: If you cannot form unit cohesion with other members of your unit because they are not your race, not your sex, not your whatever, then you are the cause of the problem and you are the one that needs to be removed. Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote:quote: One wonders why you brought it up not once but twice...both times behaving as if the reason for the blood tests had to do with detecting genetic defects. It turns out you didn't even bother to consider the reason why they do blood tests but instead, you forged ahead with your assumptions, absolutely certain they were correct.
quote:quote: Why? You can assert this all you want but it is worthless without justification.
quote: Yes. One on one. In other words, no polygamy. Polygamy necessarily requires one on two. We therefore necessarily need to redefine what the relationships are because what used to be an exclusive contract can no longer be so.
quote: But what does that mean? Why the default to hub-and-spoke rather than maximal interconnectivity? And as we have seen in a previous post, even hub-and-spoke doesn't retain exclusivity due to the nature of the marriage contract. It's called "community property" for a reason.
quote: Who is next-of-kin? If A is married to B and C and A gets sick and cannot make decisions for himself, who has the exclusive right to make those decisions for A: B or C?
quote:quote: Why? It would be clear that there can be no presumption of parentage of the other spouse in a same-sex couple. And since all children acquired by a same-sex couple would require the involvement of at least one other third party, it would necessarily involve some sort of adoptive procedure, much like what already exists for infertile, mixed-sex couples. I dare say, same-sex couples would be less complicated mixed-sex because there can never be any confusion over whether or not the other spouse is the father of the baby.
quote: Because in the current law, a child is in custody of all the parents. What does it mean when you have three instead of two? Do we mean just the biological parents or do we follow precedent and include the third?
quote: Now you've switched to adultery. I thought we were talking about children.
quote: That's a problem of sexism, not heterosexism. After all, what happens when the husband gets custody of the kids? Does not the wife then become the provider for the children? In short, the problem is not connected to same-sex couples but to the presumption that only males can be a provider. Even if we never allowed same-sex marriage, this law would still have to change because it is sexist. Same-sex marriage would only bring it about quicker.
quote:quote: You're assuming hub-and-spoke. Why?
quote: But if they're married to more than one person, which spouse are you talking about?
quote: Because current marriage law is that it is not a step relationship but a direct one. If you're going to make it a step relationship, then you're changing marriage law.
quote:quote: You were the one who brought up the social traditions of other countries. Now you're whining because there are other social traditions that don't fit your hub-and-spoke model? And since we're talking about legal relationships, there is no legal relationship in the US for marrying more than one person so all the invocations of other countries legal sanctions don't mean diddly. Ergo, there is no reason to assume hub-and-spoke. You see, were you to tell someone in the US that you were going to see a "pantomime," they would have the idea of the French concept of "pantomime": A dramatic performance performed without words and minimal set where props and set are imagined and evoked through physical gesture rather than substance. Say that in the UK, however, and they'll have a completely different idea. There, "pantomime" is a Christmas production, usually of a fairy tale, done in a broad, bawdy style (such as having men playing women's roles) with interpolated songs with rewritten lyrics. Now, if we're in the US, it really doesn't matter what the UK thinks. We have to use the US standard because that's where we are. Thus it is with polygamy. In the US, there is no legal relationship of marriage that involves more than two people. But socially in the US, there are hub-and-spoke as well as maximally interconnected relationships. Why are you only dealing with the former when the latter are just as validly described as polygamy?
quote: How does one deal with community property? How does one deal with the next-of-kin relationship? How does one deal with any children that are introduced?
quote: But that doesn't solve the problem. We still don't know how to restructure the exclusive rights that are conferred upon spouses. Under current law, if A and B are married and A gets sick, B has exclusive rights to determine treatment which trumps all other familial claims including those of parents and children. Take the recent case in Florida...the parents are not suing saying that they have the right to make medical decisions for their daughter. They're saying that the husband is violating his wife's wishes (because you have the right to determine your course of your treatment.) In short, he claims that she said she didn't want to be kept alive via machine and they're claiming he's lying. So if A is married to B and C and A cannot make his own medical decisions, who gets the exclusive right to determine treatment, B or C?
quote: That's because we're in the US. What other countries do is irrelevant. There is no legal relationship for marriage involving more than two people.
quote: One reason is that it could mean that one contract is not identical to the others. By your logic, a triad would require three contracts, each of which could be entered into without the consent of the third party. Instead, marriage is a single contract among all of them.
quote: (*chuckle*) "Regular" polygamists? You seem to think that hub-and-spoke is the default. Where did you get this ridiculous idea? Other countries? Who the hell cares about them? We're not talking about their laws or their cultures. We're talking about the US. Just off my personal experience (as worthless as that is), polygamy means maximally interconnected.
quote: Because I'm not the one making the argument that hub-and-spoke is the default of polygamy. You are. That's your responsibility. And as I showed already, hub-and-spoke doesn't solve the problems of how to distribute exclusive rights. If A is married to B and C and B and C are not married to each other, who gets to make the final decision regarding medical treatment should A be incapacitated? Marriage as it currently stands confers next-of-kin status to one other person. With that status comes a number of rights over that person. There cannot be two. So which is it? And I've already pointed out the community property problem. A's property belongs to B and B's property belongs to C, therefore C has a claim on A's property, through B, even though A and C are not married to each other.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) You really don't get it, do you? The problem is not that I cannot answer the question. I certainly can come up with many possible solutions. The problem is that I have to come up with an answer in the first place when I never had to under two-person marriage. On top of that, the answers that I come up with in multiple-person marriage have no connection to two-person marriage. In case you still haven't figured it out: It doesn't matter what the answer is. The problem is that we are asking the question in the first place.
quote: Why? Each spouse has an exclusive right to all of it. That's what current law says. If we're not changing anything about current law, then we can't split the property at all because it belongs to only one person.
quote:quote: No, not anywhere. This never happens in a two-person marriage. There is only one person who has the right to make decisions for an incapacitated person: The spouse. What the hell do we do when there are two of them? They can't both have an exclusive right, so which one gets it and why that one?
quote: Irrelevant. Parents are not spouses. The right of the spouse to make decisions for the other is an exclusive right that trumps the rights of parents. Ergo, if we are simply going to use current law without any modification, a scenario of A married to B and B married to C results in A and C with exclusive rights to determine treatment. If we treat A and C in a similar way to the parents of B, then we are changing the rights and responsibilities of marriage...a polygamous marriage no longer confers the exclusive right of making decisions for one's spouse.
quote: That means you're not married anymore and all rights of that spouse that are granted due to marriage are dissolved, replaced by any rights that come through the divorce decree.
quote: Children are not spouses. The wishes of the children are trumped by the spouse. Marriage confers an exclusive right. Mere parentage does not. In becoming a parent, no exclusive right is bestowed upon the children. So what you're saying is that we would need to change the rights of marriage to go from exclusive to shared. Well, that's changing the contract of marriage. That doesn't happen in same-sex marriage, ergo same-sex marriage changes marriage less than polygamous marriage does.
quote: But how could the claim be settled when each has an exclusive right? The reason why we can adjudicate among disagreeing parents or children is because none of them have an exclusive right. Instead, it is shared. But since marriage confers an exclusive right, how do we justify one over the other? In the case of parents/children, the courts tend to side with the result that doesn't kill the person off since that is an irreversible result. But with a spouse, killing off the patient is an option and cannot be countermanded. What you're suggesting is changing marriage law so that what was once an exclusive right is now a shared right.
quote: Incorrect. It changes an exclusive right to a shared right.
quote:quote: Why not? When you sign a limited liability partnership, it affects all the signatories. Why are you assuming that polygamy is hub-and-spoke? From what I can tell in the US, it seems to be primarily maximally interconnected.
quote:quote: Who said they didn't? You misunderstand. The point I was making is that polygamy necessarily brings things into play that would never need to be considered in two-person marriage. For example, what is the relationship of a third spouse to children born to the other two? And just in case you still haven't figured it out, the answer to that question is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that you have to ask it in the first place. You don't have to think about what the relationship is between children born to a two-person couple. There are only two, they are the parents. But with three people, we have a decision to make. What that decision turns out to be is of no importance. That we have to make the decision in the first place means that multiple-person marriage is not the same as two-person marriage.
quote: List one. Just one! I keep asking you for this over and over again, but you keep avoiding. And by the way, with this statement you indicate that same-sex marriage would necessarily require changes in the contract of marriage. But you just said that same-sex marriage wouldn't. So which is it? Does same-sex marriage change the contract of marriage or doesn't it? It can't be both.
quote: How would a gay couple's issues be any different than those of an infertile straight couple's? A gay male couple would be akin to a straight couple where she is infertile and they conceive either through his sperm donation to a surrogate or through adoption. A gay female couple would be akin to a straight couple where he is infertile and they conceive either through sperm donation to her or through adoption. Precedent's already been set. No need to change a thing.
quote: But in the case of same-sex couples, not because of anything about them being a same-sex couple. After all, you said, replacing "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" changes nothing in the marriage laws. But wait...now you're saying it will. Well, which is it? Does same-sex marriage change the marriage laws or doesn't it? Make up your mind.
quote:quote: But as shown above, they can't be. Marriage confers exclusive rights upon the spouse. Those rights cannot be exclusive if there is more than one. Thus, polygamy necessarily changes the contract of marriage in that certain rights go from being exclusive to being shared.
quote:quote: Yes, it does. If A is incapacitated, who gets to make the decision? B, who has an exclusive right as spouse, or C, who has an exclusive right as spouse? Current marriage law confers exclusive rights to the spouse. What do we do when there are two people claiming the same thing?
quote: I have given you numerous examples.
quote: Incorrect. Do you really need me to repeat the words "exclusive rights" to you?
quote: The laws of other countries are irrelevant. There is no legal relationship regarding marriage involving more than one person in the US. What other countries do is of no importance. And since it would seem that polygamy in the US is more likely to be maximally interconnected rather than hub-and-spoke, why are you assuming the minority?
quote:quote: How does that change the contract of marriage? What does the printing cost of the piece of paper the marriage license is written on have to do with the contract the license signifies? Since we are changing all instances of "husband" and "wife" to "spouse," all instances of "man" and "woman" to "person," what possible contract is left that specifies that those involved are of opposite sex? And how does that change any of the rights and responsibilities of the marriage contract? Be specific. Didn't you just say that same-sex marriage won't change the contract of marriage? And yet here you are saying that same-sex marriage does change in those parts that "specify that those involved are of opposite sex." Well, which is it? Does same-sex marriage change the contract of marriage or doesn't it? Make up your mind.
quote:quote: (*sigh*) Do I really need to remind you of Anatole France? You see, the laws preventing people from sleeping under bridges affect the rich just as much as they affect the poor. Ergo, the law is perfectly equal, right? Oh, never mind the fact that the rich person has another place to sleep legally while the poor person does not. Both rich and poor are not allowed to sleep under bridges. A gay person, if not allowed to marry someone of the same sex, has nobody to marry. A polygamous person, if not allowed to marry two people, still has someone to marry. Ergo, the reasons for justifying polygamy have nothing to do with the reasons for justifying same-sex marriage. Polygamy is about taking a right that is already available and extending it's scope. Same-sex marriage is about taking a right that doesn't exist and applying it equally.
quote: I didn't say he wasn't robbed. I said the scenario for polygamy is not the same as for same-sex marriage. There is a difference between not being allowed a second helping and not being allowed to eat in the first place. Are you seriously saying you don't understand this?
quote:quote: Incorrect. I have done nothing but do so. Do I really need to repeat the words "exclusive rights" to you?
quote: But that's a change! What used to be an exclusive right now no longer is! How is that not changing the rights and responsibilities of marriage? Under current law, A marrying B confers exclusive rights to A with regard to B. How can those rights be exclusive if B then goes on to marry C?
quote: As I rebutted before, how does a gay couple's custody issues differ from a straight, infertile couple's? Precedent has already been set. Nothing needs to change.
quote:quote: (*chuckle*) This coming from you who is whining how you don't want me to respond to you directly because it (*GASP!*) sends you a notice! "Ignorant bigot"? I don't deny the existence of hub-and-spoke relationships. I just point out that we cannot assume that polygamy means that. All too often here in the US, which is where this discussion has any relevance, polygamy actually means maximally interconnected. So now we need to make a decision. If we open up marriage to more than two people, how do we do it? Hub-and-spoke? Maximally interconnected? Both? Strange how you're the one that's restricting polygamy to hub-and-spoke and yet I'm the supposed bigot for pointing out that not all polygamists follow your model. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
quote: (*chuckle*) How many polygamist relationships do I personally know of, then? Since you know so much about my personal experience, this should be a piece of cake.
quote: I never said otherwise. What I said was that not all such relationships are of the hub-and-spoke variety that you are so obsessed with.
quote: That's other countries. Ergo, irrelevant. There is no legal relationship regarding marriage involving more than two people in the US. Therefore, there is no precedent. In fact, the precedent that does exist in the US regarding polygamous marriages from other countries is to deny the other spouses...only the first marriage is deemed valid. Therefore, what other countries do doesn't mean squat.
quote: Incorrect. Marriage as it currently exists provides exclusive rights to the spouse...and those rights are reciprocal. Take a typical Arabian marriage of one husband and multiple wives and somehow those wives won't have the same rights to restrict the husband's behaviour the way he has the right to restrict theirs.
quote: But polygamy necessarily requires changes in the contract of marriage. Suddenly exclusive rights are now shared. How is that not a change in the rights and responsibilities of marriage?
quote:quote: But that is logically impossible. A singular spouse of any sex has exclusive rights. An exclusive right cannot be shared. So how do we handle multiple spouses? We cannot grant them exclusive rights to the same thing. Therefore, you cannot have the same rights with regard to your multiple spouses that any single person wants with regard to his single spouse. We have one apple. We cannot give it to two people without splitting it.
quote: Perhaps, but those rights have nothing to do with same-sex marriage and its justifications.
quote: Those are different actions. And you didn't answer my question. What are the rights you're talking about? Spell them out. Be specific. [This message has been edited by Rrhain, 02-16-2004] Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6721 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: Anti racism literature is a good and valuable tool to deprogram the racial biases that have been instilled into some kid's heads by their less than desirable enviorments. A man can change nothing about the race that he is and it does not make any difference as for his value and inclusion into the human race. Homosexuality however is not based upon any genetic makeup. It is a behavior and it can be changed. So I'm not going to celebrate a bunch of twisties coming into the schools with literature trying to change attitudes about a particular group's distructive behavior just like I don't want alcoholics coming into the schools and trying to teach sensitivity training to kids about being accepting of full blown alcoholics operating in public. Alcolholics can't reproduce alcoholics. They can recruit though by glammorizing their behavior. No one is born an alcoholic. I agree that some might be more prone to be weaker in their ability to control their alcohol consumption but that is not because of what they are. It's because that's the way they choose to be and remain once they have wandered into the areana of alcohol abuse by either an early exposure or over glamorization at college and such. Such roads are difficult if not impossible to exit depending on how far down it they have traveled which is why I look positivly towards any of them who seek formal private help to break the behavior. No one is born a smoker but again the same principle applies. No one is born a homosexual either. It is a behavior and since homosexuals can't reproduce with each other naturally, they must recruit to grow their ranks. Now they can recruit agressivly and some of them are militant about it. They can also recruit passivly such as the in school litureature and marriage laws. Do you have a problem with your 10 year old being given cigaretts and beer. If you answer no, then this conversastion is over because you and I are in parallel universes at best. If you say yes, then ask yourself why? In the same way, I see someone coming into a school of young minds and titilating them with the thoughts of trying some other type of deviant activity and homosexuality is just that - deviant behavior. To put that in context though, I don't want some sex ed teacher showing my 12 year old how to put on a condom either nor do I want them showing my daughter how to go about getting an abortion without informing the parrents. I would suppose you would celebrate both of those "advances" yourself. See, it is a slippery slope when you break open the flood gates of traditional decency and behavior. One poster here said that he thinks gay sex is gross but he also thinks eating an artichoke is to. So he wouldn't ban artichokes so why not allow gay marriage. It's this type of twisted logic that reads so blatent in all of your responses to me that I find amazing. But even you have your own guidelines that you have impossed that society can't cross. You say that gay marriage won't result in polygamy and NAMBLA type marriages. I think you are living in a dream world. The whole gammot of arrangements will become available because once you have gay marriage for the reason of not stopping 2 people in love, then the same logic applies for groups of people and trans-gerational arrangements. You draw the line at a gay couple but you are also more conservative then most who post here and I don't think the debauchery of society will repect your position on the left-right moral scale anymore than they will respect mine. That's why I call this distructive and hope that the gay community will back off of thier persuits because it is the first step of a long slippery slope of social caious. You are the first person who has ever told me that they are sorry about my penis(Mr. Giggles). Coming from another man I find that somewhat perplexing but thanks for the sympathy for. I'm choosing to wear black underwear today to complete the theme. But in the spirit of good ole' american capitalsim, would you mind if I tried to sell the idea to Hallmark and make a few bucks? [This message has been edited by Lizard Breath, 02-16-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6721 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
You're the one with the biggest clueless concerning the makeup of the person you are debating with.
quote: Come on Rick, Rob, Randy? Do you really think there is a bully in the military picking on anybody. If I should ever come across any man or group of men kicking the crap out of another man, I stop it instantly because both 1) it's the right thing to do and 2) I can. So at least in my unit anyone caught bullying someone because they are gay would have to put me down before they continue and no one or group of them is dumb enough to call me out. Just because you are practicing Gay behavior is no grounds to have your teeth kicked in. Everyone else here feels the same. You are galavanting around saying that I am the one who should be kicked out and you are starting to sound like you want to degenerate this in to name calling. Read what I said again about how the unit cohesion would be stressed and you'll find nothing in there about anyone being agressivly mistreated, bullied or beat up. The treatment would actually be far more distructive although subtle. It's the exclusion from being brought into the level 2 and level 3 type relationship groups which is far more devestating than just getting tuned up by a dumbass hate jockey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Lizard Breath Member (Idle past 6721 days) Posts: 376 Joined: |
quote: I would pull the can of pepper spray out of my purse and shoot him in the eyes! Seriously though, I don't know how I would handle a situation like that. Most of the time when I'm off duty and in public I am wearing University of Washington Football practice T's and most say "Notoro D Line" on the back so I probably wouldn't be very desirable to another man. I put it to the test and tried to get one of the guys here to hold my hand in front of the snack bar but so far no takers. I guess I would be initially uneasy because I would be monentarily out of my confort zone in an unfamiliar situation but cool heads would prevail. I would ask the dude why he wanted to buy me some coffee? If he hinted that he was Gay then I would be polite but tell him no thanks. If he pressed the issue I would have to explain my take on that behavior in as repecting a way possible and then if he still pressed (which I doubt he would), I would put on a differnt face and verbally end the enguagement in a convincingly "don't take another step closer in this conversation" manner that I am probably too good at. Now if he said that he was a fan of UW football like me and just wanted to talk some smack about the Cougs, and he offered to go to Tully's, hey - sounds good if I've got some time. If then during the conversation at Tully's he lets on that he really was interested in me as a potential tra la la, then my beef with him is that he lied or at least was deceptive instead of being truthful and I skip the polite parts and go right in to the enguagement ending dialog. But I take my Tully's coffee with me and I leave him a couple bucks for the Jo just to reinforce that nothing occured here except poor reconissance and judgement on his part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
This is now two different threads that you two have fought this issue in. I generally have a lot of respect for each of you but this one issue makes you both act about 4 years old. The funniest thing is that you basically agree with each other.
My first thought was to close this baby down, but I think I'm going to move it to the free for all and let you have at it. You both can stomp your feet, pout, and complain to Mommy to your heart's content. Maybe you'll get it out of your system and return to more interesting threads where you can, again, earn the respect you generally deserve. SHEESH AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
Thread copied to the Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage! thread in the Free For All forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024