JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 14th November 2012, 12:39 PM   #361
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And yet there are all kinds of laws against it and you need to be able to justify your actions when you do discriminate.
there are also many laws and practices that specifically demand it.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:42 PM   #362
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
I get that, but they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender just like everyone else, so I don't see how they are being discriminated against.
Loving v Virgina. Blacks were free to marry blacks. So, what is the problem with anti-miscegenation laws? Seriously? So long as a black person can marry another black person who cares what the law says? Again, I'm dead serious. I don't think you can answer that question without directly addressing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the person of their choice.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:44 PM   #363
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
there are also many laws and practices that specifically demand it.
At the end of the day you need a compelling reason to discriminate based on sex. What is your compelling reason?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:44 PM   #364
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
That it happens frequently doesn't make it okay.
agreed, doesnt make it wrong either.

Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
BTW: People can legally discriminate based on the color of one's skin (see the right of association).
does that apply to white people as well? I didn't know that... would you say that is ok? I do know there are racist laws like affirmitive action in place.

Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
In fact, absent a compelling reason, discriminating based on sex and/or the color of one's skin is illegal in many cases.
its also required in many cases, however I categorically think this is wrong in regards to skin color.

Last edited by Oxford Comma; 14th November 2012 at 12:48 PM.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:45 PM   #365
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
At the end of the day you need a compelling reason to discriminate based on sex. What is your compelling reason?
Depends on the situation
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:47 PM   #366
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Loving v Virgina. Blacks were free to marry blacks. So, what is the problem with anti-miscegenation laws? Seriously? So long as a black person can marry another black person who cares what the law says? Again, I'm dead serious. I don't think you can answer that question without directly addressing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the person of their choice.
Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:47 PM   #367
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
I get that, but they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender just like everyone else, so I don't see how they are being discriminated against.
Just like they were free to marry someone of the same race so there was no discrimination.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:48 PM   #368
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
does that apply to white people as well? I didn't know that... would you say that is ok? I do know there are racist laws like affirmitive action in place.
I'm not an advocate of affirmative action but I know that there is a compelling reason for such laws. The question in the instance of affirmative action isn't whether it's discrimination, it's whether or not there is a compelling reason and if the laws can address that reason (are the effective?).

Quote:
its also required in many cases, however I categorically think this is wrong in regards to skin color.
But, aside from special pleading, I don't know why you think it okay to allow heterosexuals to marry those they love but not okay for gays and lesbians to marry those they love.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:49 PM   #369
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?
As long as they are all consenting adults, yes, I would agree.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:50 PM   #370
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Depends on the situation
Gays and lesbians getting married. That situation.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:50 PM   #371
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Well, it would seem to me that Marriage has been about a man and a woman getting together with the reasonable expectation that it would lead to children.
So there is no reason to let the sterile marry. Are you against my grandfather undermining traditional marriage by remarrying a 70 year old woman? I can say there was no reasonable expectation that they would have kids.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:52 PM   #372
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Are you seriously seggesting that there is absolutely no situation where it is justified to discriminate based on sex?

I agree that frequency and tradition do not make right. they also don't make wrong either.
There are times it is and times it isn't. There are specific legal tests for such things. Given that prop 8 supporters did not mount a defense it seems that the legal case for it is rather lacking.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:55 PM   #373
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?
1.) I've answered this question and given you my reasons which you have ignored (see below). 2.) You've been asked a followup question to your "group" marriage premise, which again, you've ignored (see below).
  1. Re group marriage. I honestly don't know. I'm not against it but there are a number of problems that need to be addressed. Let's have those who want group marriage to fight for that just as gays and lesbians have done. Let's have them seek redress before the courts and have experts testify on both sides of the question just as they did for Gay Marriage.
  2. Let's assume you and I are both against group marriage. Does it then follow that heterosexual marriage should be outlawed?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:56 PM   #374
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
does that apply to white people as well? I didn't know that... would you say that is ok?
Both are free to marry someone of their own race and blocked from matting outside it. The law was applied to everyone.

It was determined that discriminating in who can marry on the basis of race is not legally supportable. Sex based laws have similarly been struck down. Which is not surprising when no legal defense is offered.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:58 PM   #375
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?
You are the only one bringing in polygamy to this debate, why do you keep doing that when you ignore all the demonstrated cases of how it is different?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:58 PM   #376
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Are you seriously seggesting that there is absolutely no situation where it is justified to discriminate based on sex?
You are talking about situations in which people of opposite gender do not wish to be together. There is a big difference between telling a bunch of guys, "Sorry, the women's locker room is off limits to you because they don't feel comfortable sharing that space with you", and telling two people, "We're sorry, but you can't have your union recognized by the state because other people don't wan't you together". What you're proposing is more like telling men and women at a private gym that they can't freely share a locker room even if they all choose to do so.

Quote:
I agree that frequency and tradition do not make right. they also don't make wrong either.
Then why do you keep appealing to them?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:59 PM   #377
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Gays and lesbians getting married. That situation.
Just for the record here, personally, I don't care one way or the other about marriage or marriage laws. I feel anyone should be able to enter into a marriage contract with whomever and however many people they want. marriage is essentially a business contract, and a crappy one at that.

That being said, this thread is about the best For and Against arguments for gay marriage. I have posted and am defending the arguments I think are the most compelling. in spite of my personal position, I feel these are solid arguments and have yet to hear a good rebuttal.

As for gays and lesbians getting married, no one is stopping them. They can marry anyone else, provided they are of age, a different gender, and only 1 person. But we are going in circles here. Gays and Lesbians are asking that the definition of marriage be changed, the onus should be on them to provide the reason as to why that should be so. it seems to me, in the spirit of democracy, they should push for civil uniouns and get all the same rights while giving their opponents what they want as well. To me that seems like a no brainer.

I don't buy the discrimination argument based on sexual preference. I dont agree that it is bigoted to think marriage is about raisng families and protecting the family unit.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:01 PM   #378
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You are the only one bringing in polygamy to this debate, why do you keep doing that when you ignore all the demonstrated cases of how it is different?
This debate is about changing the definition of marriage. changing 1 man and 1 woman is not much different than changing it from people to other people. I know you want to make it sound complicated, but it really is not. The solutions to whatever problems may arise could easily be sorted out.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:03 PM   #379
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Well, it would seem to me that Marriage has been about a man and a woman getting together with the reasonable expectation that it would lead to children.
Yeah, that was AvalonXQ's "best argument". Here's my reply to him"

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Awesome! Now all we have to do is pass laws that require prospective spouses to sign a government contract in which they promise that they will at least try to have children. We can't have people wasting the state's time by entering into marriages that aren't going to produce children. Let's make them take a medical examination to first ensure that they are both physically capable of producing children, then we'll make them promise to have a child within, say, five years or else their marriage will no longer be recognized by the state. If one or both parties can't have children for whatever reason, then there's no point even recognizing their relationship as far as the state is concerned.

So can we all assume that you are just as opposed to marriages between heterosexual couples who either can't, or chose not to have children?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:03 PM   #380
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
You are talking about situations in which people of opposite gender do not wish to be together. There is a big difference between telling a bunch of guys, "Sorry, the women's locker room is off limits to you because they don't feel comfortable sharing that space with you", and telling two people, "We're sorry, but you can't have your union recognized by the state because other people don't wan't you together". What you're proposing is more like telling men and women at a private gym that they can't freely share a locker room even if they all choose to do so.


Then why do you keep appealing to them?
No, what i am saying is, there is no reason to change the definition of 'Mens Lockeroom' and 'Womens lockeroom' just because some men and women want to share a lockeroom somewhere.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:04 PM   #381
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Just for the record here, personally, I don't care one way or the other about marriage or marriage laws. I feel anyone should be able to enter into a marriage contract with whomever and however many people they want. marriage is essentially a business contract, and a crappy one at that.
So you don't even know that marriage isn't a contract but a status you enter into with another. Here is a hint, no.contract will make it easier to get a visa but marriage will. No contract will effect who had paternal rights and obligations for your kid but marriage will.

If you want to debate marriage you should learn more about it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:08 PM   #382
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Thats a fair point. So would you say that any two people then, who choose to live together should be able to get the benefits of a marriage?

Any two people of contractual age, yes.

Fair enough. So would you say that any group of people who choose to live together should be able to get the benefits of marriage?
Yes again, with the same caveat as before.

Actually, ponderingturtle makes an excellent argument against polygamy in that its practical application may be too complex to codify as law. I'm not sure that this problem is unavoidable, but assuming it is, I think limiting marriage to two individuals would be justified.
__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Merton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:08 PM   #383
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Yeah, that was AvalonXQ's "best argument". Here's my reply to him"
I don't see how 'reasonable expectation' translates into an absolute demand of children. It's simply playing the odds. Pretty good odds too.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:09 PM   #384
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
I dont agree that it is bigoted to think marriage is about raisng families and protecting the family unit.
If someone uses that argument selectively against gays and lesbians, but has no problem with heterosexual couples marrying who are unable to, or choose not to have children, then I can think of no other way to describe this discrimination other than "bigotry".
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:09 PM   #385
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So you don't even know that marriage isn't a contract but a status you enter into with another. Here is a hint, no.contract will make it easier to get a visa but marriage will. No contract will effect who had paternal rights and obligations for your kid but marriage will.

If you want to debate marriage you should learn more about it.
None of those things you said invalidate my postion, but thanks for the eblightenment.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:11 PM   #386
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
If someone uses that argument selectively against gays and lesbians, but has no problem with heterosexual couples marrying who are unable to, or choose not to have children, then I can think of no other way to describe this discrimination other than "bigotry".
So if someone were to oppose two roomates getting married in order to reap the benefits, you would say that is bigotry?
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:13 PM   #387
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
Yes again, with the same caveat as before.

Actually, ponderingturtle makes an excellent argument against polygamy in that its practical application may be too complex to codify as law. I'm not sure that this problem is unavoidable, but assuming it is, I think limiting marriage to two individuals would be justified.
It is not nessacarily too complex, just very complex and has the potential to effect everyones marriage. Gay marriage is legally simple and will not impact my marriage.

I think it could be solved but it will require a lot of work and either be a separate institution or dramatically change marriage.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:13 PM   #388
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
Yes again, with the same caveat as before.

Actually, ponderingturtle makes an excellent argument against polygamy in that its practical application may be too complex to codify as law. I'm not sure that this problem is unavoidable, but assuming it is, I think limiting marriage to two individuals would be justified.
Not only is not not too complicated, but happens in other countries in the world all the time. Hell, pre-nups can get pretty complicated too, but so what? if we are talking about 'rights' here, I hardly see how that should be an issue.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:13 PM   #389
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
That being said, this thread is about the best For and Against arguments for gay marriage. I have posted and am defending the arguments I think are the most compelling. in spite of my personal position, I feel these are solid arguments and have yet to hear a good rebuttal.
I've yet to see a valid argument.

Quote:
As for gays and lesbians getting married, no one is stopping them. They can marry anyone else, provided they are of age, a different gender, and only 1 person.
Anti-misegnination laws, blacks and whites can get married provided they are of age, a different race and only 1 person.

Quote:
But we are going in circles here. Gays and Lesbians are asking that the definition of marriage be changed,
IOW: Tradition.

Quote:
...the onus should be on them to provide the reason as to why that should be so.
Leaving the presumption (begging the question) aside. Plaintiffs have made formal arguments in support of their right to marry. Please see Perry v. Brown. The court found in their favor. And the silly arguments were laughed out of court.

Quote:
I don't buy the discrimination argument based on sexual preference. I dont agree that it is bigoted to think marriage is about raisng families and protecting the family unit.
Please watch the Prop 8 trial reenactment. The finding of fact was that gays and lesbians form family units and that gay marriage would benefit these family units without harming other family units immediately. If you really care about families, then being pro gay marriage is really your only choice.

BTW: I want to emphasize something, the plaintiffs own expert witness testified that gay marriage would in fact improve the lives of gay and lesbian families. When asked what evidence there was that gay marriage would harm other families none was presented.

Let me bullet this.
  • Lot's of exert testimony that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would be beneficial to their families.
  • No evidence that gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriages.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

Last edited by RandFan; 14th November 2012 at 01:14 PM.
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:16 PM   #390
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
So if someone were to oppose two roomates getting married in order to reap the benefits, you would say that is bigotry?
Some benefits have stricter rules about how they apply. See investigations into suspected green card marriages.

So they could get into trouble for fraud in that case.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:17 PM   #391
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
No, what i am saying is, there is no reason to change the definition of 'Mens Lockeroom' and 'Womens lockeroom' just because some men and women want to share a lockeroom somewhere.
So you're OK with "men's locker room", "women's locker room" and "co-gender locker room", all as sub-categories of "locker room"? Are you OK with "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" as sub-categories of "marriage"?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:17 PM   #392
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
No, what i am saying is, there is no reason to change the definition of 'Mens Lockeroom' and 'Womens lockeroom' just because some men and women want to share a lockeroom somewhere.
  • Are there people who are being demonstrably harmed by these designations?
  • If gays and lesbians have a compelling reason to grant them the right to marry people of the same sex then what is your compelling reason to deny them?
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:18 PM   #393
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It is not nessacarily too complex, just very complex and has the potential to effect everyones marriage. Gay marriage is legally simple and will not impact my marriage.

I think it could be solved but it will require a lot of work and either be a separate institution or dramatically change marriage.
I don't think its too complex, thats what lawyers are for. I also don't see how it would drastically change marriage. An agreement entered by consenting adults should be fine.

It's like saying a business merger between more than two companies would drastically change the definition of business mergers. I don't agree that that follows.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:19 PM   #394
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Not only is not not too complicated, but happens in other countries in the world all the time. Hell, pre-nups can get pretty complicated too, but so what? if we are talking about 'rights' here, I hardly see how that should be an issue.
It doesn't happen in any country that has anything like our definition of marriage and womens rights though.

Marriage in the us and marriage in saudi Arabia are rather different. For example american women are allowed to drive and not beaten for getting raped.

You also can marry an 8 year old and not get into legal hot water, so clearly no problems with that either.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:20 PM   #395
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
So if someone were to oppose two roomates getting married in order to reap the benefits, you would say that is bigotry?
Non sequitur. Gays and lesbians get married for many reasons. Being a gay person, falling in love and wanting to marry the person you love isn't the same as marrying to get free stuff (which btw ISN'T against the law and you know that).
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:20 PM   #396
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Are there people who are being demonstrably harmed by these designations?
Yes, men and women who feel they should have the right to use any lockeroom they want without being discriminated against.

Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
If gays and lesbians have a compelling reason to grant them the right to marry people of the same sex then what is your compelling reason to deny them?
There is a law against it. What is their 'compelling reason'? and how does it differ from the one I provided about the lockerooms?
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:21 PM   #397
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 16,047
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
I don't see how 'reasonable expectation' translates into an absolute demand of children. It's simply playing the odds. Pretty good odds too.
The only reason that it's a "reasonable expectation" is because it's common. "Reasonable expectation" isn't "obligation". In many Christian families there is a "reasonable expectation" that their children will marry another Christian. Why should this prevent a person from marrying a Hindu, Sikh or Muslim whom they are in love with?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:22 PM   #398
Oxford Comma
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It doesn't happen in any country that has anything like our definition of marriage and womens rights though.

Marriage in the us and marriage in saudi Arabia are rather different. For example american women are allowed to drive and not beaten for getting raped.

You also can marry an 8 year old and not get into legal hot water, so clearly no problems with that either.
agreed.
Oxford Comma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:23 PM   #399
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,380
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
I don't think its too complex, thats what lawyers are for. I also don't see how it would drastically change marriage. An agreement entered by consenting adults should be fine.

It's like saying a business merger between more than two companies would drastically change the definition of business mergers. I don't agree that that follows.
So does my spouse's spouse's spouse get a marriage visa and covered by my insurance or not?

It seems you get a lot more networks in polyamory than you do closed triads and quadrads.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:23 PM   #400
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Oxford Comma View Post
Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?

Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
  1. Re group marriage. I honestly don't know. I'm not against it but there are a number of problems that need to be addressed. Let's have those who want group marriage to fight for that just as gays and lesbians have done. Let's have them seek redress before the courts and have experts testify on both sides of the question just as they did for Gay Marriage.
  2. Let's assume you and I are both against group marriage. Does it then follow that heterosexual marriage should be outlawed?
I would really like an answer to question #2.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.