homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » GLBT is a facade (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: GLBT is a facade
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....

What, exactly, are all these "perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults," please? What does that even mean?

The request at the moment is to allow two people of the same sex to be married. The only option on the books at the moment is permitting two people of the opposite sex to be married.

What other possible permutations are there, pray tell?

(BTW, polygamy has been accepted for, I'd bet, far longer than monogamy has been mandated, so I'm not so sure about the "time immemorial" and "thousands of years of tradition" aspect. Marriage simply hasn't always been "the union of one man and one woman," much as you want to lean on that argument. And nobody's trying to change the "monogamous" aspect, anyway - which is surely what you prize in your "definition of marriage," isn't it? If it were just the heterosexuality of the thing, polygamy would do nicely, wouldn't it?)

[ 19. October 2010, 17:44: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't make sense that most heterosexuals want "marriage" respected as the definition of the legal union between a man and a woman? And the same men and women want homosexuals to have access to legal unions that define each partner as possessing the very same rights, privileges and obligations - just don't call it "marriage"?...

OK, I get it now; it was hard to tell what you meant because one thought extended over two sentences.

I am curious as to why you care so much what the government does, though. Isn't it the cultural aspect that concerns you here? That's what it seems to be, anyway. And since heterosexuals are the vast majority and always will be, can't you continue to disdain the idea of "homosexual marriage" as you now do, and keep that cultural ideal intact? Surely it's irrelevant what legal name is given to something you don't believe exists anyway....? Nobody can force to you "accept" anybody you don't like; the only request is to treat people equitably.

Of course, equal treatment is a given in everything.

On the assertion that "no one can force", that's not true. Perhaps "compel" is a better word for most of us. But vis-a-vis the anti discrimination classes on race: there is still an enormous gulf between Whites and Blacks in the Southern States, and elsewhere I gather (I've even seen it here in Utah, but it is rarely exposed, being so disapproved of by the majority). The civil rights of everyone were reinforced during Reconstruction right after the ACW; then conservative Fed Gov't backed off and it took literally generations for the intent of the 14th Amendment to become fact. It is still being driven home daily that it is a fact.

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however, is based on giving up everything and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese. It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.)
quote:


(Or perhaps you're just ticked off at "gay activists" in general and venting spleen? You seem to have a lot of resentment about a lot of different issues here.)

I'm not ticked off, much less angry. Annoyed and worried is what I feel. Yes, the antics or any public displays of protest, by gays or any other horde of activists, annoy me. I wish such activities didn't seem so essential to so many people. They don't behave their best when gathered together; extreme things get said and done, and memories are long.

I resent any extremism; it never accomplishes justice for all.
quote:


I do think the states will object to the two sets of laws, though - and so will others, who will see it as blatant discrimination. As I said, I don't personally care much, because I'm not that interested in what the government does. It does a lot of stupid things and it's a waste of time getting exercised over most of them.

I'm intensely interested in what the Gov't does: the Gov't is a composite of "Mini Mes", thus it reflects on society of which I am a part.

And as I already said, there is no reason to assume that a "gay marriage law" and a "straight marriage law" need be on the books one following the other as it were. Just put in an illustrative listing of terms on what the "legal union" laws mean, and let the homosexuals come up with their special name for their legal (civil) unions to include in that listing. It ought to work just like the "suspect class" listings do for the anti discrimination laws. Let "marriage between one man and one woman" head that list, since it came first in this Nation; then let any other "classes" follow. (Why do I imagine that the GLBT advocacy would howl that the order in which legalized unions are listed matters? That their name for their unions is discriminated against because it isn't listed first?...)

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But IF the GLBT advocacy succeeds (as I suspect that they will) in getting "marriage" to include every perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults (or, if the polygs get their way, piggy-backing on the GLBT advocacy's victory, any number of consenting adults), then thousands of years of definition of what "marriage" has meant will be rendered obsolete. We are free to redefine words all we want to. But there is a large segment of society who prefer to leave well enough alone as much as possible. A lot of people don't welcome unnecessary change and the instability it causes....

What, exactly, are all these "perceivable sort of legal union between two consenting adults," please? What does that even mean?

The request at the moment is to allow two people of the same sex to be married. The only option on the books at the moment is permitting two people of the opposite sex to be married.

What other possible permutations are there, pray tell?

Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?
quote:


(BTW, polygamy has been accepted for, I'd bet, far longer than monogamy has been mandated, so I'm not so sure about the "time immemorial" and "thousands of years of tradition" aspect. Marriage simply hasn't always been "the union of one man and one woman," much as you want to lean on that argument. And nobody's trying to change the "monogamous" aspect, anyway - which is surely what you prize in your "definition of marriage," isn't it? If it were just the heterosexuality of the thing, polygamy would do nicely, wouldn't it?)

You are mistaken here on a few points: In THIS Nation, monogamy has been the ONLY form of marriage upheld by the Constitution. The rest of the world can do as they please. And historically, the greatest civilizations of the world have upheld monogamy as well; the other expressions of sexual excess have all be allowed only outside of marriage. Where polygamy exists it is almost always polygany. But polyandry has been and is used to limit population growth. (I believe that if China instituted polyandry that their problem with excess male population would virtually disappear virtually overnight, and would continue to effectively limit their population growth.) Polygany almost always defers to the "first wife"; who has inheritance rights and property disposition rights that trump the other wives' rights. So in effect, polygany (the same institution as the OT "patriarchal marriage") is for the first wife much the same thing as monogamy; all she has to do is share her husband sexually; something that many women don't seem to mind at all, or even welcome in some circumstances....

And, you can bet your last dollar, safely, that the polygamist advocacy is prepared to ride on the success of the GLBT advocacy straight to an overturning of the anti polygamy laws (anti bigamy laws, actually).

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
sharkshooter

Not your average shark
# 1589

 - Posted      Profile for sharkshooter     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
....

It may happen under Canadian law.

Unless a denomination specifically forbids it for their clergy, a particular clergy of that denomination may not refuse. So, for example, if the United Church does not forbid such 'marriages', any United Church minister cannot refuse. That is, they may be coerced by the government to do so. It will not be up to the particular church, or minister, to be able to refuse.

That is the law here.

--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]

Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'm intensely interested in what the Gov't does: the Gov't is a composite of "Mini Mes", thus it reflects on society of which I am a part.

Hmmmm. I don't identify in any way with the people who run for political office; they seem mostly to be nothing like me - let alone "Mini Mes."

But then, I'm much happier being an outsider, usually, so maybe that explains it.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Let "marriage between one man and one woman" head that list, since it came first in this Nation; then let any other "classes" follow. (Why do I imagine that the GLBT advocacy would howl that the order in which legalized unions are listed matters? That their name for their unions is discriminated against because it isn't listed first?...)

Because you're being completely ridiculous now?
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...And no, sharkshooter - clergy won't be forced to marry anybody, any more than they're forced to do it today. (i.e., The Catholic Church doesn't have to marry divorced people, etc.)
....

It may happen under Canadian law.

Unless a denomination specifically forbids it for their clergy, a particular clergy of that denomination may not refuse. So, for example, if the United Church does not forbid such 'marriages', any United Church minister cannot refuse. That is, they may be coerced by the government to do so. It will not be up to the particular church, or minister, to be able to refuse.

That is the law here.

Well, I don't believe it, to be honest. Clergy can refuse to marry multiply-married persons, too, and refer them someplace else. They can refuse to marry people on a host of other subjective grounds, too; if not, they'd be forced to marry people unsuited to one another in dozens of possible ways, against their will and judgement.

I simply don't believe this claim - although I'd be interested in seeing evidence. A link, perhaps?

And when you say "may be," I presume you mean, "it hasn't actually happened"? Hmmmm.....

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amorya

Ship's tame galoot
# 2652

 - Posted      Profile for Amorya   Email Amorya   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however, is based on giving up everything and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese. It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes.

No-one wants that!

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
sharkshooter: You are incorrect. TubaMirum has it right. In Canada, clergy have absolute discretion in whom they choose to marry, nor do they have to disclose their reasons. Let me help you with a direct quote from Bill C-38:
quote:


3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Link to government webpage here.

But if you think clergy are or should be "quietly taking steps to ensure they will never be coerced to perform a homosexual marriage" - a principal already upheld in the law - they can knock themselves out.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Sharkshooter has it wrong.

Marriage Commissioners (called "Justices of the Peace" in the U.S.) must perform marriages for same sex couples because they are agents of the state and are entrusted to carry out the services and policies of the state without discrimination.

Clergy, who do not have the dual role of Marriage Commissioner, follow their denominational policy. For most denominations, Christian, Muslim or Jewish, and other, same sex marriages are no permitted. The Metropolitan Community Church and United Church of Canada are the two largest denominations that permit same sex marriage (though the UCC has a conscientious exemption clause.)

Bill C-38 has a specific exemption for religious institutions. No clergy, who are not acting in an official capacity as a marriage commissioner, can be forced by the government to perform same sex marriages.

[ 19. October 2010, 19:36: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
In Canada, clergy have absolute discretion in whom they choose to marry

Actually I should probably rephrase that slightly, and add something like, "within the provisions of provincial legislation on marriage."
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There is an ongoing debate, particularly in the western part of Canada, where some Marriage Commissioners (who may or may not be clergy) want to exempt themselves from marrying same sex couples for religious reasons. The courts have ruled that this violates the Charter. Agents of the Government do not have the choice to serve some groups of people and not serve others. Their job function demands serving all and upholding anti-discrimination laws.

But no clergy person (or anyone else) must become a Marriage Commissioner. Becoming one is a completely voluntary act.

Still somehow the government is being oppressive to them if they can't arbitrarily discriminate against people who have a legal capacity to marriage.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?

Um, incest is illegal, and gay marriage doesn't change that. Gay people - as the saying goes - are asking to be able to marry somebody, not anybody. We would like to have the support of partners in life, like the rest of humanity - and in this age of "marriage for love," it's hard to see why this should be denied.

I thought everybody had got this idea by now.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
You are mistaken here on a few points: In THIS Nation, monogamy has been the ONLY form of marriage upheld by the Constitution. The rest of the world can do as they please. And historically, the greatest civilizations of the world have upheld monogamy as well; the other expressions of sexual excess have all be allowed only outside of marriage. Where polygamy exists it is almost always polygany. But polyandry has been and is used to limit population growth. (I believe that if China instituted polyandry that their problem with excess male population would virtually disappear virtually overnight, and would continue to effectively limit their population growth.) Polygany almost always defers to the "first wife"; who has inheritance rights and property disposition rights that trump the other wives' rights. So in effect, polygany (the same institution as the OT "patriarchal marriage") is for the first wife much the same thing as monogamy; all she has to do is share her husband sexually; something that many women don't seem to mind at all, or even welcome in some circumstances....

And, you can bet your last dollar, safely, that the polygamist advocacy is prepared to ride on the success of the GLBT advocacy straight to an overturning of the anti polygamy laws (anti bigamy laws, actually).

Your original claims about "one man and one woman" were "always," and "for thousands of years" - neither of which time frame fits the term of existence of the United States. If you'd stop being hysterical and use language that fits your arguments, nobody would challenge you on basic errors.

I don't think many people are likely to be arguing for polygamy - and many fewer would support it, and there are lots of reasons why not. Multiple wives (as you note, by far the most common arrangement) and dozens of children are potentially big problems for the state, because most single men won't be able to support them - and who would, at that point? You guessed it - the rest of us. There have been recent cases of teenaged boys being dumped by the side of the road, ejected from polygamous groups because they are threats to the adult men. Gay people (for the thousandth time!) are asking only to be allowed to marry once, like everybody else can - not dozens of times.

It's ludicrous that we have say these things hundreds of times....

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Underage children are deemed to not have the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relationships with adults. They also aren't allowed to execute legal contracts (which is what marriage essentially is), legally drink alcohol, drive cars or serve the military either. Gay marriage between consenting adults wouldn't affect this status. Consent means consent, and part of giving consent is being deemed by the law (and psychologists) as having the capacity to do so.

It makes for a great red herring though.

[ 19. October 2010, 22:16: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...

A law that forbids anyone from playing water polo is non-discriminatory in your book. I can just imagine all the people who've never attempted to play water polo and have no interest in trying it shrugging their shoulders and saying "what's the problem?"

A silly analogy, imho; since marriage IS just about the most common institution in the world. It happens to also be the most important to most people. It has a name. If you would accept the challenge to come up with a special name for your special arrangement, instead of trying to topple the apple cart, there would not be an issue regarding equal rights.

You're ignoring the central qualifier to the issue of definition: "marriage" can be preserved just as it has always been. As clarified and admitted: hardly anyone in the USA is against equal rights, protections included, for homosexuals or any other minority.

The writer invites gays to come up with their own (creative, imaginative) term for their unions: Which will be precisely the same rights, privileges and obligations as "marriage". Since the gender attraction issue is the "difference" brought up by homosexuals themselves, it is up to them to define that difference with a word/term for their civil unions, instead of insisting that the majority are wrong to point out that that difference even matters. It obviously matters to "you" a great deal. And it also matters to the heterosexual majority.

At one and the same time, you are saying "We're Gay" and insisting that the distinction isn't worthy of mention in the marriage laws (unless, of course, you can win a special mention of gender not being a qualifier): AND fighting to include "sexual orientation/gender identity" to the "suspect classes" in the discrimination laws. The minority protection status is created by the GLBT advocacy itself. This is a natural reaction from a marginalized group who are fighting for equality. But it also validates the majority's fight to preserve the definition of "marriage" as traditional heterosexual monogamy.

Therefore you have nothing to argue for except a prideful desire to give some "payback" for all the generations of homosexuals who have lived in their private hells of fear and deprivation....

Another concept from discrimination law that clearly hasn't registered is that discrimination can consist of either failing to take a relevant difference into account, or taking an irrelevant difference into account.

You've conflated the two about half a dozen times in this post.

The whole point is that we are arguing that gender is NOT a relevant difference in a marriage. I don't want a special arrangement. I want the same arrangement you've got. And as I've already observed, if it really IS the same thing as you keep trying to tell me, it makes no sense to have 2 different names for it.

It's either a special arrangement or it's exactly the same. You can't rationally argue both of those things simultaneously.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however,

Unsupported assumption; nobody knows that a majority of heteros is reluctant.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
is based on giving up everything

??? Giving up what, exactly? What rights, privileges, or status do "reluctant heteros" no longer have as the result of other people being allowed to marry?

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese.

How? Right now, a "special minority class" exists which is denied (in most US states and federally) the right to marry -- a right extended to all adult heterosexuals but denied to all adult homosexuals. It's the denial which creates the "special minority class." Extending the right to marry to all adults eliminates that status; no legalese required.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.).

How do you arrive at this? First, "marriage" does not equal "sex" (just ask any married couple who have made it past the first couple of years). Extending the right to marry to any adult citizen will not affect the number of people one can marry (currently limited to one); the age of the one person one intends to marry (varies somewhat under state law, but generally 18 or with parental consent at younger ages; or the unenforceable laws which no doubt remain on the books in many places about impermissible sexual practices.

People wanting to marry children will not be challenging this solely under relevant marriage laws, but under laws regarding the welfare of children. People wanting to marry members of other species will have to challenge this under laws regarding the welfare of animals (to say nothing of their putative rights and status under the law). People wanting to marry multiple partners simultaneously will have to challenge under inheritance laws (and probably others too) as well as marital law.

These aren't simply matters of degree, as you seem to assume; they are matters of different legal classes. Adult citizens belong to one legal class (or should); children belong to another, as do animals, and so on.

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Where is this movement led by children and animals demanding the right to sign legal documents and legally own property? I'd think that would be a far more important step than securing the right to marry adults (which, again, involves comprehending and signing a legal contract and legally owning property.)

I get that this is a slippery slope logical fallacy, but generally slippery slopes slide into something plausible (though that doesn't make it any less fallacious.) This slope seems to be sliding into something that is really bizarre.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15

 - Posted      Profile for dyfrig   Email dyfrig   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....
How many two people unions can you think of, Merlin?

1. A man and a woman (or a woman and a man, these days)
2. A man and a man
3. A woman and a woman

Assuming the same rules about capacity and consent apply to 2 and 3 as they do to 1, what other issues can you articulate regarding this approach?

--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt

Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Infertile adults marrying kinfolk; moms to sons, daddies to daughters, visa versa: then why not allowing such to adopt? Etc. Why not? What's the harm done? No possible genetic freaks are going to result from such unions. And isn't sexual expression an idividual, inalienable, God-given right?

Um, incest is illegal, and gay marriage doesn't change that. Gay people - as the saying goes - are asking to be able to marry somebody, not anybody. We would like to have the support of partners in life, like the rest of humanity - and in this age of "marriage for love," it's hard to see why this should be denied.
False dichotomy. The very same wording you used could be applied by a father and daughter wanting to marry each other; or twin sisters/brothers, etc. There is no reason against incest if the possibility of fertility is removed. The only possible objection is upon deap-seated, traditional grounds, i.e. religious grounds. Religion prohibits incest between consenting adults. But in this high-tech world where we control pregnancy, all such possible freaks of unnatural union are removed, ergo, the prohibition against incest is obsolete, on purely practical grounds (the "ick" will always be there: though for what proportion of the population cannot be known: morphing social "values" can swing the majority into all manner of conceivable sexual practices!). There was (is?) a case in OZ recently where, iirc, a man and his daughter wanted to be married. Even in OZ I suspect this is simply too over-the-top "icky" to be acceptable. But such a couple (infertile for whatever reason) cannot be simply denied on the basis of broad public "ick" factor. It must be shown how and why incest in such a couple is any more morally wrong than homosexuality. And it cannot be shown.

quote:


...

Your original claims about "one man and one woman" were "always," and "for thousands of years" - neither of which time frame fits the term of existence of the United States. If you'd stop being hysterical and use language that fits your arguments, nobody would challenge you on basic errors.

It's not a basic error. Polygamy and monogamy have existed side-by-side virtually "forever" (that's "always", for as long as we have any record to go by). And the culture of "The West" is decidedly Grecco-Roman, not African or Asian, where polygamy has existed and still does. The pressure for change in what "marriage" means is assaulting that monogamous institution bequeathed to us via the RCC, via the Roman empire, via Greek culture that held sway over the Mediterranean world for centuries.
quote:


I don't think many people are likely to be arguing for polygamy - and many fewer would support it, and there are lots of reasons why not. Multiple wives (as you note, by far the most common arrangement) and dozens of children are potentially big problems for the state, because most single men won't be able to support them - and who would, at that point? You guessed it - the rest of us. There have been recent cases of teenaged boys being dumped by the side of the road, ejected from polygamous groups because they are threats to the adult men. Gay people (for the thousandth time!) are asking only to be allowed to marry once, like everybody else can - not dozens of times.

It's ludicrous that we have say these things hundreds of times....

I agree with you! But that won't stop the bringing up of their "special practice" and fighting it to the bitter end. Polygamy is only natural in those rare (and temporary) situations where one gender greatly outnumbers the other. It isn't natural to Nature, no matter what "prophet" said so, quoting The Almighty in the bargain, so he asserted anyway....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Underage children are deemed to not have the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relationships with adults. They also aren't allowed to execute legal contracts (which is what marriage essentially is), legally drink alcohol, drive cars or serve the military either. Gay marriage between consenting adults wouldn't affect this status. Consent means consent, and part of giving consent is being deemed by the law (and psychologists) as having the capacity to do so.

It makes for a great red herring though.

I throw your red herring back at you. I didn't say anything about under-aged consent.

Interesting, though, how the image that leaped into your mind when the word "incest" came up, automatically inserted children being corrupted by their evil adult kinsfolk. The OZ case is (was) between two adults; who, as far as I heard, never engaged in sexual activities when the daughter was a child....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282

 - Posted      Profile for TubaMirum     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
False dichotomy. The very same wording you used could be applied by a father and daughter wanting to marry each other; or twin sisters/brothers, etc. There is no reason against incest if the possibility of fertility is removed. The only possible objection is upon deap-seated, traditional grounds, i.e. religious grounds.

No, Merlin - that's not at all the "only possible objection." I can think of another, far better one without trying very hard: permitting incest of any kind would be the total ruination of the family unit.

Trust and love of the kind that currently exists between close family members would be utterly destroyed - believe me - if the incest taboo were lifted, and I'm pretty sure this is apparent to most people who think about it for even a second or two.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I agree with you! But that won't stop the bringing up of their "special practice" and fighting it to the bitter end. Polygamy is only natural in those rare (and temporary) situations where one gender greatly outnumbers the other. It isn't natural to Nature, no matter what "prophet" said so, quoting The Almighty in the bargain, so he asserted anyway....

Thanks for another good argument. It doesn't seem like a good idea, does it, to leave thousands of men in a permanently-unmarried condition?

[ 20. October 2010, 15:19: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]

Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
My comment wasn't directed at you. It was a general remark.

I still don't see how this relates to gay marriage. Same sex siblings can't get married just like anyone else.

(And where is the mass movement of oppressed people yearning to change this? Sexual orientation is recognized by both legal and psychological bodies as based on an attraction toward people based on general characteristics. In the few instances those who can overcome our biologically innate incest taboo, there is no sexual orientation toward a sibling, which would be an individual rather than people. We fall in and out of love toward individuals all the time.)

[ 20. October 2010, 15:21: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Another concept from discrimination law that clearly hasn't registered is that discrimination can consist of either failing to take a relevant difference into account, or taking an irrelevant difference into account.

You've conflated the two about half a dozen times in this post.

You are twisting the word "conflate" here: because what I was pointing out is precisely the equal nature of the two claims: gender shouldn't matter in obtaining equal treatment under the "marriage" laws; AND gender is historically, traditionally, societally a very large difference in defining what the word "marriage" has meant and still means to the heterosexual majority. (That many have thrown in the towel doesn't change their feelings on the issue one bit.)
quote:


The whole point is that we are arguing that gender is NOT a relevant difference in a marriage. I don't want a special arrangement. I want the same arrangement you've got. And as I've already observed, if it really IS the same thing as you keep trying to tell me, it makes no sense to have 2 different names for it.

It's either a special arrangement or it's exactly the same. You can't rationally argue both of those things simultaneously.

Yes "we" get it. And so do you. And the fact that this keeps coming up is because we both FEEL differently about the word "marriage".

It makes perfectly logical sense to have two different words for two different gender-based relationships. That the GLBT advocacy intends to destroy any distinction between them is discrimination reversed.

You want no distinction based on gender whatsoever. Have you even imagined what the ultimate outcome of such an agenda could be?...

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
You want no distinction based on gender whatsoever. Have you even imagined what the ultimate outcome of such an agenda could be?...
For marriage (which is what this thread is about)? The outcome is the awful nightmarish dystopia that is modern Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Belgium, or Norway, or Argentina, or Iowa, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Connecticut.

Awful awful places populated by hoards of hermaphrodites.

[ 20. October 2010, 15:41: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
testbear
Shipmate
# 4602

 - Posted      Profile for testbear     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:
...

What's wrong with simply changing the law so that instead of "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman" we get "Marriage is a union between two people". No special minority class created, gay marriage advocates are happy, and nothing changes for heterosexual couples.

Amorya

Hypothetically, assume that the SCOTUS agreed on that overarching verbiage applying to all the USA. Instant chaos! Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be? This is why nothing happens quickly when laws are altered or added. It takes years (thank heaven)....
Um, no.

If beforehand there were limits on which particular pairs of men and women could marry, these will still apply. Removing the limitation of marriage from "one man and one woman" to "one person and one other person" does not change any of the qualifiers that existed beforehand (no incest, no under-age, informed consent, etc, etc) as they all still exist after the change.


Analogy:

Here are 3 rules for a (fictional) game:

1. No player is allowed to bite another player while the game is in progress.
2. All players of the game must be over 18.
3. Only human beings with brown eyes may participate in the game.

Let me then change rule number 3 to:

3. Only human beings with brown or blue eyes may participate in the game

Question: Have I changed anything about rules 1 or 2?
Answer: No. How could I have? Rule 3 does not state that human beings with brown or blue eyes are allowed to bite during the game, or that human beings under the age of 18 with brown or blue eyes can now participate in the game.


All the LGTB "brigade" want to do is change the "one man and one woman" part of the definition of marriage to "one person and one other person", and keep all the other parts of the definition of marriage exactly as they are.
In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

--------------------
"If you really believe what you say you believe / you wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak"

Posts: 127 | From: a town where you can't smell a thing | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:

Homosexuals require the same rights to legally recognized unions as heterosexuals do. The reluctance of the majority of heteros, however,

Unsupported assumption; nobody knows that a majority of heteros is reluctant.
You take ONE very recent poll to be an overturning of the blatantly obvious majority objection to the use of "marriage" to define homsexual unions. As pointed out by others, giving up isn't the same thing as being convinced, or having ones opinions/feelings altered a whit.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
is based on giving up everything

??? Giving up what, exactly? What rights, privileges, or status do "reluctant heteros" no longer have as the result of other people being allowed to marry?
You've apparently lost the thread of this piece of the conversation. "Marriage". Giving up the traditional meaning of that word is giving up everything. It really is the last and only arguing point: because "gay marriage" is happening and will apply everywhere eventually: it's just not wanting to call same-gender unions "marriage" that has been the majority's objection. It's what Prop 8 was all about; which, as you might choose not to recall, was voted FOR by a majority of Californians.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
and seeing a special minority class created in the legalese.

How? Right now, a "special minority class" exists which is denied (in most US states and federally) the right to marry -- a right extended to all adult heterosexuals but denied to all adult homosexuals. It's the denial which creates the "special minority class." Extending the right to marry to all adults eliminates that status; no legalese required.
If you could secure equal rights without "suspect class" status, I'd agree with you: but that isn't the case is it? "Gender distinction/gender identity" are being fought for as insertions into the anti discrimination laws everywhere. So, too, are the same phrases into the marriage laws everywhere. That's the creation of a permanent minority class every bit as legally recognized as Race (which also does not exist except in the public mind). So here you claim that it is the long-standing marriage laws that cause the special minority called "homosexual marriage" to exist; and that inserting legalese into the marriage laws to include them will somehow erase the legal existence of this now-admitted minority group.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
It doesn't seem necessary or even practical: thus the assertions that if the gays get their way, the door will be opened to every "brand" of sexual expression as protected minority classes. There is a real danger here: wants cannot be held to be sufficient cause for minority "suspect class", specific recognition: Or else all the unmentioned wants will have equal claim for specific recognition. (I have already addressed this in a post a few minutes ago.).

How do you arrive at this? First, "marriage" does not equal "sex" (just ask any married couple who have made it past the first couple of years).
Where did I say "marriage equals sex"? Marriage includes sex. Not the same thing.

quote:
Extending the right to marry to any adult citizen will not affect the number of people one can marry (currently limited to one); the age of the one person one intends to marry (varies somewhat under state law, but generally 18 or with parental consent at younger ages; or the unenforceable laws which no doubt remain on the books in many places about impermissible sexual practices.

People wanting to marry children will not be challenging this solely under relevant marriage laws, but under laws regarding the welfare of children. People wanting to marry members of other species will have to challenge this under laws regarding the welfare of animals (to say nothing of their putative rights and status under the law). People wanting to marry multiple partners simultaneously will have to challenge under inheritance laws (and probably others too) as well as marital law.

These aren't simply matters of degree, as you seem to assume; they are matters of different legal classes. Adult citizens belong to one legal class (or should); children belong to another, as do animals, and so on.

I appreciate your effort here to lucidly point out the differences in claims to recognition under the marriage laws.

I have already agreed that polygs will fight their own battle; but by using the success of the GLBT advocacy as an open door to be widened. So too will other relationships between TWO consenting adults that are more complex and even as equally distasteful to general society, e.g. incest where no fertility is possible.

The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off. And your agenda is blowing off the lid. Or hadn't you noticed? THAT is the equality: break the china, and you invite every other patron to break more china....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Since marriage has been separated from procreation through birth control, places like Tasmania have taken steps to separate it from sex altogether.

They have a domestic partner registry that allows an unmarried/dom. partrd. person to form a relationship with another unmarried/dom. prtnrd person of any relationship that gives them most of the benefits of marriage, including:

* Superannuation (pension/retirement benefits)
* Taxation
* Insurance
* Health Care
* Hospital Visitation
* Wills
* Property Division
* Employment Conditions (such as parenting and bereavement leave)

You can DP your mother, brother, child or your spouse or either sex. This allows a child to care and protect their elderly live in widowed parent, or invalid sibling or their partner and receive the same tax breaks and benefits a married couple would. Laws regulating sexual activity, consent, etc. are still in place.

Personally, I think we should throw out the archaic notions of civil marriage altogether and allow anyone to "marry" anyone else. It doesn't mean they will have a romantic or sexual relationship, but it does mean that everyone receives equal treatment under a law that takes into account modern life.

see: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/index.html

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off. And your agenda is blowing off the lid. Or hadn't you noticed? THAT is the equality: break the china, and you invite every other patron to break more china....
Can you give me one real world example of this happening in any of the jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal? Are there incest and bestiality rights groups petitioning the Canadian Parliament for legal recognition? I'm not aware of it.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
...

All the LGTB "brigade" want to do is change the "one man and one woman" part of the definition of marriage to "one person and one other person", and keep all the other parts of the definition of marriage exactly as they are.

In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

Why else, to you suppose, the OZ case between the father and daughter came up now? I'll answer that: Simply because the "gay marriage" agenda has made such progress lately everywhere (just look at TD's list of Shangri-Las). This encourages even smaller minorites to push for equal treatment. And if there cannot be shown reasonable doubt why a refusal should be made on civil rights grounds, those "minorities" will get their own exceptions passed into law as well.

Incest is a perception, not an absolute. Our perception is founded upon Greco-Roman culture overlaid with Judeo-Christian prohibitions. It is all very old. But not half so old as more venerable traditions regarding sex and marriage. There have been places where marrying your sister or brother was the way to maintain the dynasty (e.g. ancient Egypt). A double standard arises whenever you have social classes; the "elites" get to do whatever they want and put limits on everyone else.

So TubaMirum's "total ruination of the family unit" is relative to society's definition of what a family unit is supposed to look like. And we already have such an erosion of "the family" away from the traditional family that defining it as anything is practically discrimination against someone else's opinion. So this "total ruination of the family unit" has, imho, already occurred to such an extent as to make worrying about the kind of "love" a married couple have quite pointless: from a legal standpoint at least (which IS what this thread is about, not just "gay marriage")....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
...

Personally, I think we should throw out the archaic notions of civil marriage altogether and allow anyone to "marry" anyone else. It doesn't mean they will have a romantic or sexual relationship, but it does mean that everyone receives equal treatment under a law that takes into account modern life.

see: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/index.html

Oh goody. Complete caving in to the mounting pressure of minority claims from every quarter. This is good! [Ultra confused]

Of course, SEX is involved. It's just that "The State" will turn a blind eye. Until the daughter brings charges up against her DP, her dad in this case, of sexual abuse, coercion, rape, etc. ad nauseam. There will be no end to the bizarre cases, since EVERY DP permutation imaginable is okeedokee in "tak[ing] into account modern life".

There is no greater fallacious assertion than that somehow our species today (Ooo, we moderns) is different from all the other times we have experimented with giving ourselves unbridled license, and worse, made it all legal.
quote:


Can you give me one real world example of this happening in any of the jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal? Are there incest and bestiality rights groups petitioning the Canadian Parliament for legal recognition? I'm not aware of it.

Give it time, TD. Mutterings have already been alluded to on this thread alone; including my bringing up the OZ incestual marriage case. "Sex by eight or it's too late". "Patriarchal marriage is straight from the Old Testament". Animals? I can't think of any off-hand. But I am SURE "they" are paying strict attention to the climate of change and will manifest accordingly....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493

 - Posted      Profile for JoannaP   Email JoannaP   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.

Unless of course you work in the US armed forces - though possibly not for much longer. We live in hope...

--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Civil marriage is nothing more than a legal arrangement. Sex does not have to be involved and more than it has to be involved with any other legal arrangement.

If people want to have sex with their parents, children or siblings they are going to do that whether there is gay marriage, or a Tasmanian Domestic Partnership law, or not.

And telling me that other groups are going to lobby for legal recognition sometime isn't an acceptable response. Gay marriage has been law of the land for several years in these jurisdiction yet they haven't moved to change their contract law, sex laws or anything else. If these groups are out there and see gay marriage as the start toward legalizing their relationships, it makes sense that they would start advocating for it now while the momentum is high. This is nothing more than silly paranoid fantasy.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[qb] But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc. Any such discrimination is already addressed and the media picks up on it right away; and the bigot is made to look very bad: and all without any changes required to the "suspect class" clauses already listed.

[Killing me]


Exactly how would you know this?

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

Almost no legal discrimination maybe. Do you really believe its all fine now?

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

 - Posted      Profile for Leaf     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Incorrect: the answer is obviously "yes", in the context of modern Western perceptions of marriage. Marriage is seen as an exchange of love, honesty, respect, fidelity, and support between two consenting adults. Since LGBTQ people are capable of providing and exchanging these good things, they should be (and are, in Canada) able to legally marry. Their advocacy toward legal marriage supports and enhances the value of marriage! If they want it that badly, maybe it's worth something?

If you wish to resort to "the original meaning of the word marriage", I can sum that up for you: A deal made between two men in which x number of animals were exchanged for one virginally-intact housekeeper. If that is the definition of marriage which you wish to see preserved, undoubtedly there are still some cultures which will support you in that, but it will be a tough sell in current Western perceptions of personhood and marriage.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
For marriage (which is what this thread is about)? The outcome is the awful nightmarish dystopia that is modern Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, or Spain, or Belgium, or Norway, or Argentina, or Iowa, or Massachusetts, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Connecticut.

Awful awful places populated by hoards of hermaphrodites.

(Leaf looks down in puzzlement) Is that what happened? Huh.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
What Leaf said. Marriage is a different thing now than it was even 100 years ago. Even 60. With the advent of (fairly) reliable birth control and career options for women, marriage evolved from a dependency into a partnership of equals. If you (generic you) are still thinking of marriage as a way to provide support for calving heifers while they are most vulnerable, and tie the randy bull down to prevent straying and non-payment of support, then perhaps homosexuals getting married can be seen as absurd. But that's not what marriage is anymore.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Amorya

Ship's tame galoot
# 2652

 - Posted      Profile for Amorya   Email Amorya   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Because such a vague description allows ALL "two people" unions. See how careful we must be?

No it doesn't. It allows all that aren't prohibited by other text. If you're talking about incest or polygamy, I don't see how the change I proposed would make them any more or less allowed than they are now.


quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
In light of this, why, precisely, do you object to this becoming the legal definition of marriage?

I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no".

I would say the answer is obviously "yes". Something that is made more equal and less discriminatory is obviously strengthened.
Posts: 2383 | From: Coventry | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I would say yes also, for a slightly different reason. Expanding the definition includes larger numbers of people. More people, more strength.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I would say yes also, for a slightly different reason. Expanding the definition includes larger numbers of people. More people, more strength.

Yes - absolutely.

But expanding the defnition doesn't 'expand' it or change it at all really - it simply brings much needed equality, which should always have been there.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
testbear
Shipmate
# 4602

 - Posted      Profile for testbear     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

And I will add my agreement to those who say the answer is obviously "Yes".


quote:

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

"No." Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, and doesn't stand up in court, legislature or debate. What is against the law remains illegal until those who decide what the law is decide otherwise. Your dislike of the popular (that is, supported by the populus) agreement on allowing homosexual couples to partake in the legal contract of marriage is not justification enough to stop it; the popular (that is, supported by the populous) agreement that the current wording of the law distriminates unjustly against homosexual couples who wish to partake in the legal contract of marriage is justification enough to change the law. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it, you campaign to reform it (and if enough people agree, things change. Thus the beauty of it.)

quote:
Why else, to you suppose, the OZ case between the father and daughter came up now? I'll answer that: Simply because the "gay marriage" agenda has made such progress lately everywhere (just look at TD's list of Shangri-Las). This encourages even smaller minorites to push for equal treatment. And if there cannot be shown reasonable doubt why a refusal should be made on civil rights grounds, those "minorities" will get their own exceptions passed into law as well.
Um, no. The "GLBT brigade" are not pushing for some new human rights which they have to be recognised; they are campaigning because they believe that there is no qualitive difference between a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship.

You believe that there is a qualitive difference; one that means witholding certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s) (note, not sexuality; as a straight man I would currently be forbidden from marrying another straight man in many parts of the US even if we only married for, say, some hypothetical tax break) of those wishing to utilise that legal allowance.

The will of the people is now turning to recognise that denying people the opportunity to get married simply for this (gender) reason is no longer acceptable in the USA. And, just as the will of the people recognised that owning slaves was no longer acceptable in the USA, or that driving over a certain speed on public roads was no longer acceptable in the USA, things change, laws adjust to reflect that, and people get on with their lives.

Nobody currently believes that a daughter-father relationship is qualitively identical to either (or both) of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. If that starts to change, it will have to overcome current thinking about protecting people in an unbalanced power relationship, and concerns about the effects of the genetics involved on any possible offspring.

quote:

The rest will also fight their battles for acceptance. If we are seeing one of the most fundamental laws governing society overturned utterly (including the very definition and use of the word "marriage"), then that is an open invitation to revisit ALL of the laws governing legally recognized relationships. You can't stop the flood once the lid is blown off.

Again, yes you can. You don't believe that the reasons presented are sufficient to change the law to include same-sex partners marrying; the populous disagrees with you. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it, you campaign to reform it (and if enough people agree, things change. Thus the beauty of it.)

No adequate reasons have been presented which would allow any other reformation of the legal definition of marriage. Thus, no other reformation will occur until compelling (to the populous) reasons are presented. It's called representative democracy. If you don't like it, you campaign to reform it (and if enough people agree, things change. Thus the beauty of it.)

Oh, and it's not "one of the most fundamental laws governing society"; if it were, there would be many fewer co-habiting heterosexual couples.

--------------------
"If you really believe what you say you believe / you wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak"

Posts: 127 | From: a town where you can't smell a thing | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But it has been pointed out that in fact almost no discrimination occurs against homosexuals anymore in the work place or in housing, etc.

Almost no legal discrimination maybe. Do you really believe its all fine now?
No. It isn't "all fine now". But neither is it in the Deep South, or other places where minorities are discriminated against. Or reverse discrimination: like my sister-in-law in Texas, whose boss was a Black Lesbian, and treated her with utter contempt because she was White and Mormon.

Prejudice and bigotry will die away much more slowly, I am thinking, than the laws of the land stipulate....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
But Blacks, Mormons and Whites all have recompense under the law if they are discriminated against. One can even argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a great deal to change opinions because it changed the composition of the work place.

You advocate that gay people discriminated against or fired because they were gay have no recompense.

[ 21. October 2010, 17:55: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
And it's a contradictory argument:

Prejudice and bigotry have gone away so we don't need an anti-discrimination law, yet individuals and businesses would be unduly burdened if such a law was passed. It can't work both ways.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by testbear:
...

You believe that there is a qualitive difference; one that means witholding certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s) (note, not sexuality; as a straight man I would currently be forbidden from marrying another straight man in many parts of the US even if we only married for, say, some hypothetical tax break) of those wishing to utilise that legal allowance.

Did you even read through the posts? Or just leap in at the end of what I've been saying?

Nowhere have I said, nor do I believe, that homosexuals ought to be "[withheld] certain legal allowances for no reason other than the gender(s)". I have been saying the exact opposite in fact.

The above objections to my assertion, that the current movement to legalize "gay marriage" is a weakening of the definition of "marriage", are all couched from a narrow, modern perspective: whereas my belief in stability includes retaining the venerable definitions of words. We can come up with a different word for what homosexuals want and are obtaining, i.e. equal civil rights under the existing marriage laws. There is no reason why "marriage" must necessarily be applied to homosexual legalized unions. By expanding the meaning of "marriage" to include something that it never has meant, the ORIGINAL meaning is diluted, i.e. not strengthened. We are not even talking about the same thing: I am talking about the original definition; and "you" are talking about a new, stronger, more ecumenical meaning/definition of the word "marriage": a modern one, inclusive of more people: hence "marriage" (the newer definition) IS stronger, if more people say so. Hell, we can chuck the entire English language if the democratic majority enforces such a move by law - or you can try at least.
quote:

The will of the people is now turning to recognise that denying people the opportunity to get married simply for this (gender) reason is no longer acceptable in the USA.

We have moved far beyond this point already on this thread. Nobody is arguing that homosexuals shouldn't be able to form "domestic partnerships" (I like that term, actually).

quote:

...

Nobody currently believes that a daughter-father relationship is qualitively identical to either (or both) of a homosexual or heterosexual relationship.

Well, nobody except the fathers and daughters who want to "marry" that way. A puny minority compared to the GLBT(Q?) advocacy. But since when was percentage of the total population a reason to justify or ignore the existence of a minority opinion? I thought that recognition, equal and admitted, was the hallmark of the Lib mantra of EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS.
quote:

If that starts to change, it will have to overcome current thinking about protecting people in an unbalanced power relationship, and concerns about the effects of the genetics involved on any possible offspring.

You really haven't read what I said, or the responses: I brought up the incestuous "marriage" case in OZ as an example of INFERTILE heterosexual relationships, between consenting adults, that are nevertheless illegal (as homosexuality itself was once illegal): and for what good reason? None I can think of, since homosexuals are determined to assert that sex has nothing to do with what they are fighting for; and there isn't a difference in their sexuality or any other. An infertile father-daughter, mother-son, sister-brother, sister-sister, brother-brother "marriage" is just as valid on the basis of "domestic partnership" as any other.

quote:

Oh, and it's not "one of the most fundamental laws governing society"; if it were, there would be many fewer co-habiting heterosexual couples.

And you think that society is well? A 50+% divorce rate is healthy?

It is argued BY sexually moral people, that such behavior is a sign of sickness: so how exactly does your facile dismissal of the truth stand up to reality? People sleeping around is running counter to the defenders of "gay marriage" on this thread, especially the GLBT(Q?)s themselves: they claim that marrying their SOs will strengthen marriage, thus society will benefit. So your quip about heteros "co-habiting" (fornicating, I presume you mean) is non sequitur....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But Blacks, Mormons and Whites all have recompense under the law if they are discriminated against. One can even argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did a great deal to change opinions because it changed the composition of the work place.

You advocate that gay people discriminated against or fired because they were gay have no recompense.

What? [Confused]

Of course "gays" have recourse, and possible recompense under the existing anti discrimination laws. The "suspect classes" are not supposed to be exhaustive; as I said, like the Bill of Rights, they point out the obviousness of an individual right to equality: they don't pretend to list ALL of the possible civil rights (suspect classes).

It happens famously that homosexuals win civil rights cases; this occurs more and more often as more of them take courage and fight for their rights in the open. That is momentum.

My sister-in-law could have taken her former bigoted, Black Lesbian Boss lady to court. Instead, she quit and got another job. Homosexuals do this all the time. So do most people who are harassed at work. No amount of fairness laws will make people stand up for themselves every time. As long as there are assholes there will be victims. Some of them fight, sometimes. And sometimes they win. Homosexuals are no exception even without any further changes to the legalese....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I'll answer that with a question: Does altering the marriage laws to "one person to one person" strengthen the definition of the word "marriage"?

The answer is obviously "no". Such a change dilutes the original meaning of the word "marriage".

Does "one person to one person" strengthen the possibility that other changes to the existing order will occur?

"Yes". Because each and every change to the legalese shifts the "balance" as it has been into a different position. And ANY shift causes adjustments.

Doesn't this logic lead one to conclude that Loving v. Virginia (the last time the U.S. made a major revision to its marriage laws) was wrongly decided? Allowing inter-racial marriage could be argued to "dilute[] the original meaning of the word "marriage"". In fact, it was argued, as was your point that "ANY shift causes adjustments". If appeals to tradition and prejudice weren't sufficient to justify discrimination in that case, why should those arguments be accepted now?

BTW, the same question can be asked of your proposal for "Separate but Equal" nomenclature for same-sex marriages.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
They don't have legal recourse, in those jurisdictions where discrimination based on sexual orientation isn't prohibited. It is perfectly legal to fire someone because of sexual orientation in jurisdictions where it isn't forbidden. You can take that company to court, but you'll lose. If it isn't explicit in the law, it ain't illegal.

Quitting a job because of abuse by a supervisor based on race, gender, religion, etc. isn't legal recourse. Often you are throwing accumulated years of service (and the benefits it accrues away.) Many people don't want to leave their jobs. They want the harassment and discrimination to end. That's what these laws are for.

[ 21. October 2010, 18:55: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And it's a contradictory argument:

Prejudice and bigotry have gone away so we don't need an anti-discrimination law, yet individuals and businesses would be unduly burdened if such a law was passed. It can't work both ways.

That's a straw man, since I never said prejudice and bigotry have gone away. Look at the last few posts I have made. Clear as day. And I don't believe that I have even addressed the "burden" on businesses and individuals that further legalese would impose.

But since you brought it up: I believe that we need FAR fewer laws, not more. Nobody can tell when they are breaking "the law" anymore. Especially various trespassing laws: they are so complex and overlapping that nobody can tell where one set of laws ends and another begins (Fed, State, County, private jurisdictions: which holds sway and where and when, and what is allowed when, and where?, etc.) We don't need more laws; we don't require specially protected minority classes, let alone MORE of the same. We should be moving away from complexity/obscurity toward simplicity. Justice is very simple and clear; it doesn't require a rocket scientist level Law Degree to figure out.

But this is not going to change; laws multiply like noxious weeds, and the lawyers with them. I despair....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ToujoursDan

Ship's prole
# 10578

 - Posted      Profile for ToujoursDan   Email ToujoursDan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Who cares whether there are fewer or more laws? Most people want effective laws that protect the innocent and vulnerable from being abused or unjustly treated. If the need is there, there should be a law.

--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan

Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But since you brought it up: I believe that we need FAR fewer laws, not more.

How about eliminating the laws requiring the parties to a marriage be opposite genders? That would simplify matters greatly and reduce one more legal hurdle for couples to contend with.

quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Justice is very simple and clear; it doesn't require a rocket scientist level Law Degree to figure out.

Who knew you needed to go to law school to design rockets? I guess NASA must have been doing it wrong all these years by hiring engineers and scientists.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools