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 9th November 2012, 07:23 PM   #121
DragonLady
Master Poster
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Under the Starry, Starry Night
Posts: 2,644
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Monogamy is like getting killed in a car accident over and over every day.

Hooray! Now I've thought of a theme for anniversary parties.
Damn TM, that should've come with a warning. I nearly spit coffee all over my keyboard.
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

“She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar.” ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One
DragonLady 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 9th November 2012, 10:48 PM   #122
mutile
Muse
 
mutile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 756
For: Puts an end to a form of bigoted discrimination and being an international embarrassment.

Against: It might lead to more money for Churches
mutile 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 10th November 2012, 12:30 AM   #123
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by L.Y.S. View Post
...why aren't homosexuals content with finding a different name other than marriage for their unions?
Why should we?

In regard to calling it something different, then that in itself makes it different. Telling one group of adults that they can’t have the same thing as all other adults creates two classes of citizenship.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 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 10th November 2012, 04:38 AM   #124
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,413
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Why should we?

In regard to calling it something different, then that in itself makes it different. Telling one group of adults that they can’t have the same thing as all other adults creates two classes of citizenship.
It also makes confusion for trans and genderqueer. Which one applies to them and if they serving the wrong one can it be annulled for that reason?
__________________
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 10th November 2012, 05:36 AM   #125
GodMark2
Graduate Poster
 
GodMark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by L.Y.S. View Post
I know this may seem controversial, I'm just curious, why aren't homosexuals content with finding a different name other than marriage for their unions? I'm just curious, it's not meant to be offensive.
Yeah, why aren't they OK with separate but equal? I mean, look at how well them colored folk like it.
__________________
Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.
GodMark2 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 10th November 2012, 12:38 PM   #126
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 4,948
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."

-Senator Barack Obama, 2008
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin 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 10th November 2012, 12:49 PM   #127
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: green island autonomous zone
Posts: 7,370
i can't believe that this is still a dispute.
this is 2012...time to wake up and accept reality.

marriage should only be the business of the two consenting partners, as abortion is only the business of a woman.

their choice/her choice.
simple.
what's the boggle?
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid 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 10th November 2012, 12:52 PM   #128
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,921
Update:

Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."

-Senator Barack Obama, 2008
Obama Backs Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by WSJ 2012
President Barack Obama said Wednesday he supported gay marriage, reversing his position on a controversial social issue just six months before the November election and adopting a stance fraught with uncertain political implications.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
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 10th November 2012, 01:12 PM   #129
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Sure- I know that Obama's position eventually "evolved" when polls on the issue hit a magic tipping point. I've changed my mind once or twice as well on social issues (although I strongly suspect that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus rather than risk his chances of winning the election). Just having some fun.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin 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 10th November 2012, 01:15 PM   #130
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,921
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
Sure- I know that Obama's position eventually "evolved" when polls on the issue hit a magic tipping point. I've changed my mind once or twice as well on social issues (although I strongly suspect that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus rather than risk his chances of winning the election). Just having some fun.
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus prior to his announcement? FWIW: I won't try to argue that the position wasn't politically motivated but I'm not sure he really had much of anything to win with the announcement. Some have stated there was little to no upside politically.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
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 10th November 2012, 01:45 PM   #131
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus prior to his announcement? FWIW: I won't try to argue that the position wasn't politically motivated but I'm not sure he really had much of anything to win with the announcement. Some have stated there was little to no upside politically.
I suspect Obama was pandering when he said that but who knows? Maybe he really was that bigoted four years ago.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin 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 10th November 2012, 02:43 PM   #132
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,921
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
I suspect Obama was pandering when he said that but who knows? Maybe he really was that bigoted four years ago.
When I was against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry I was sincere. I don't think it made me evil. Perhaps bigoted. BTW: Exactly how bigoted is "that bigoted"? Whatever it is I guess Obama and I were equally bigoted. And let me say "wrong is wrong". In any event, I would not put it past a politician to pander. I kinda think that has to happen to some extent. It's when you get into the level of pandering that Mitt Romney brazenly employed that really troubles me.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
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 10th November 2012, 04:27 PM   #133
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
i can't believe that this is still a dispute.
this is 2012...time to wake up and accept reality.

marriage should only be the business of the two consenting partners,
In other words, keep government out of my marriage?
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 10th November 2012, 05:35 PM   #134
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 18,283
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Gay Marriage is an attempt to heteronormalise gay people into straight people. The LGBT movement used to be about shunning social control and contrivance. Now the wealthy white males at the head of Gay Inc. have decided that making us "legitimate" is our primary focus.

(The above might not reflect views of this poster.)
Lol.

I do think that there is a movement to 'normalise' gayness (not 'heteronormalise') and that's a good thing for most gay people. They don't want to freaks and outcasts.
__________________
“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
Puppycow 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 10th November 2012, 06:16 PM   #135
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
When I was against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry I was sincere. I don't think it made me evil. Perhaps bigoted. BTW: Exactly how bigoted is "that bigoted"? Whatever it is I guess Obama and I were equally bigoted. And let me say "wrong is wrong". In any event, I would not put it past a politician to pander. I kinda think that has to happen to some extent. It's when you get into the level of pandering that Mitt Romney brazenly employed that really troubles me.
By "that bigoted", I mean bigoted enough to say that a marriage between two gay people is not equal to an opposite sex union. I applaud you by the way for being open minded enough to admit you were wrong. My father in law is a lifelong and staunch conservative Republican and he had a similar realization on gay marriage (before Obama came out in favor of it, I might add). It makes me optimistic that before too long gay marriage will not only be accepted and legal but also uncontroversial.
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

Last edited by ravdin; 10th November 2012 at 06:17 PM.
ravdin 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 10th November 2012, 06:18 PM   #136
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: green island autonomous zone
Posts: 7,370
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In other words, keep government out of my marriage?
that is not what i said.
if two consenting adults wish to marry, it is no one else's *********** business.
the churches do not have to marry them, but government marriage commissioners should not be able to refuse.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid 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 11th November 2012, 10:43 AM   #137
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,413
Originally Posted by Ger View Post
PROSELYTE = politicians' resort over sincerity, endless lies yelled to everyone

LIGHTNING
The thing was that he had made pro gay marriage statements before. Now I think he most likely just pushed for what he felt he could get, which is good politics. Look at washingtons road to extending more rights to gays over time to make it a small series of steps and so not shock voters.
__________________
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 11th November 2012, 10:58 AM   #138
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: green island autonomous zone
Posts: 7,370
Originally Posted by ravdin View Post
By "that bigoted", I mean bigoted enough to say that a marriage between two gay people is not equal to an opposite sex union. I applaud you by the way for being open minded enough to admit you were wrong. My father in law is a lifelong and staunch conservative Republican and he had a similar realization on gay marriage (before Obama came out in favor of it, I might add). It makes me optimistic that before too long gay marriage will not only be accepted and legal but also uncontroversial.
not long ago, it was illegal to marry someone of another race.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid 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 11th November 2012, 12:03 PM   #139
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
that is not what i said.
if two consenting adults wish to marry, it is no one else's *********** business.
So....why do we need to have government involved at all?

Two people wish to marry. Great. You're married. It is not my *********** business, so I can just ignore it.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 11th November 2012, 12:07 PM   #140
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: green island autonomous zone
Posts: 7,370
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So....why do we need to have government involved at all?

Two people wish to marry. Great. You're married. It is not my *********** business, so I can just ignore it.
'marriage' has legal ramifications.
spousal benefits, medical insurance, inheritance rights.
'marriage' is a legal, state sanctioned contract.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid 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 11th November 2012, 02:37 PM   #141
Crocoshark
Critical Thinker
 
Crocoshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 375
I thought of three versions of my post

1st version

Best arguments for: Legal benefits such as hospital visiting rights, etc., any other arguments that apply to marriage in general.

Marriage would be a cooler idea if it wasn't specifically about romance and involved expanding family and one's circle of loved ones. Like you could use it to bring your dearest life long friend and partner into your family. And maybe gay marriage will nudge marriage in that direction.

Best arguments against; Marriage should be a private enterprise that the government has no business in, marriage is overrated and pursued mostly out of conformity, any other arguments that gets applied to straight marriages as well.

For example, if you say "marriage should be between those who will raise children." you'd better be campaigning against sterile/asexual/etc. couples just as hard or else it's not even an argument, it's BS you made up and don't believe yourself

2nd version

Best argument for: It would make some people more comfortable and happy

Best argument against: It would make some peo,ple uncomfortable and unhappy

I guess the question is which sides feelings are more rational. I think neither side's feelings are very rational, but the "against" side is less so. It can't seem to come up with one single, logical, honest argument that doesn't sound hypocritical. At least the "for" side has the legal benefits and questions of fairness.

3rd version

Argument for: Some people feel a group of people is otherwise made lesser

Argument against: Some people feel an idea is made lesser.

People trump ideas.

Last edited by Crocoshark; 11th November 2012 at 03:12 PM.
Crocoshark 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 11th November 2012, 03:30 PM   #142
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by bikerdruid View Post
'marriage' has legal ramifications.
spousal benefits, medical insurance, inheritance rights.
'marriage' is a legal, state sanctioned contract.
No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 11th November 2012, 03:36 PM   #143
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: green island autonomous zone
Posts: 7,370
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.
no one is forcing you into marriage, straight or queer.
get over it.
__________________
Subvert the Dominant Paradigm!!
bikerdruid 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 11th November 2012, 03:43 PM   #144
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,921
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.
If I didn't want to get married I wouldn't.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
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 11th November 2012, 04:18 PM   #145
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,413
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.
Then don't get married. You don't get the rights and priviliges of marriage and the state doesn't care.
__________________
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 11th November 2012, 05:15 PM   #146
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Then don't get married. You don't get the rights and priviliges of marriage and the state doesn't care.
Rights and privileges. Is there anything else to marriage?


Here's what I'm getting at. People who support gay marriage tend to speak in exactly those terms. They demand various rights and privileges associated with marriage, but if someone starts talking about duties and responsibilities, they tell those people it's none of their *********** business.

It seems to me that we ought not be granting any sort of rights and priviliges to people who enter into long term sexual relationships. It really is none of my business, so you should leave me out of it. Completely out of it. Totally out of it. Don't tie up local bureaucrats issuing licenses. Don't tie up local judges when you decide you don't care to stay together any more.

Gay or straight, poly or mono, I shouldn't care who you sleep with, so leave me and my tax dollars and my insurance dollars out of it. Do what you will.


Unless you can make some sort of case that I, as a citizen of your shared society, ought to care about the nature of your sexual relationships, then you shouldn't be demanding that I, through my elected officials, give you a license to carry on as you wish.

Now, if you and another person wish to enter into some sort of mutual property sharing agreement, I don't have any objection, but I fail to see why it should be somehow connected with the state's knowledge of the existence of some sort of sexual congress between you and the other person, or between you and some third person with whom you do not have an agreement.


So, to relate this to the specific question of the OP:

Best argument for: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.
Best argument against: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 11th November 2012, 05:33 PM   #147
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,413
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Rights and privileges. Is there anything else to marriage?


Here's what I'm getting at. People who support gay marriage tend to speak in exactly those terms. They demand various rights and privileges associated with marriage, but if someone starts talking about duties and responsibilities, they tell those people it's none of their *********** business.
No those are rights as well. You have a right to property in a divorce. Any responsibility is someone else's right.
Quote:
It seems to me that we ought not be granting any sort of rights and priviliges to people who enter into long term sexual relationships. It really is none of my business, so you should leave me out of it. Completely out of it. Totally out of it. Don't tie up local bureaucrats issuing licenses. Don't tie up local judges when you decide you don't care to stay together any more.
Deport all those scum who try to get a greencard for the stupid reason of love. We know it is really a job no real american wants.
__________________
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 11th November 2012, 06:24 PM   #148
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
No those are rights as well. You have a right to property in a divorce. Any responsibility is someone else's right.

But that's a private agreement between two parties.

We have prenuptual agreements, don't we? Those work fine, don't they? They don't force anyone to do anything, and they spell out exactly what is expected, exactly as the two parties involved wish. Right? So let's just rename "pre-nuptual" agreements as "nuptual" agreements and honor the terms between those two private citizens as appropriate. If that contract happens to include some contractual obligation for sexual activity, I guess we can allow that. Why shouldn't we?

Quote:
Deport all those scum who try to get a greencard for the stupid reason of love. We know it is really a job no real american wants.
Love? Who's talking about love? This thread is about marriage.

Just pass a law that says each person can sponsor one other person into the country. Why bring love or sex or marriage into it?

If you really feel strongly about it, I suppose you could propose a law that says you can only sponsor one person if you can prove you are having sex regularly with that person. I suppose. Is that what you want?

Or is it love, specifically, that's important. It's going to be hard verifying love, though. Sex is at least definable and verifiable.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 11th November 2012 at 06:25 PM.
Meadmaker 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 11th November 2012, 06:45 PM   #149
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,921
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Love? Who's talking about love? This thread is about marriage.
I honestly don't give a damn one way or the other. Just be consistent. As long as the state is involved with marriage then I will fight like hell to see to it gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights. I will continue to live with my wife whether we are married or not. Let me know when you get the state out of marriage... oh, and good luck with that.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
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 11th November 2012, 09:26 PM   #150
Mercurial Artism
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 115
Pro: Legal marriage is a government category, not the province of religious organizations, which will have their own, separate criteria for what constitutes a valid marriage. Due to separation of church and state, the government should not let religious arguments affect the legality of same-sex marriage.

Con: Next thing you know, people will demand the right to marry siblings and dogs! (It's a slippery slope argument, sure, but I've met enough mentally screwed up people to know there will be some people wanting those things who will try to draw analogies to gays to make out like they're just a poor, oppressed group.)
Mercurial Artism 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 11th November 2012, 09:47 PM   #151
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 10,467
If one wants to make an evidence-based case against same-sex marriage, claiming there are various negative outcomes for allowing it, I'd point out there are several countries in which the experiment has been run. In Canada, for example, same-sex marriage has been legal across the entire country for seven years now (it's been legal in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario for nine years). So one has seven to nine years of real-world data to look at to try and find negative consequences.

As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any. (At least, not in the opinion of this citizen of the country named.)
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

Last edited by Corsair 115; 11th November 2012 at 09:48 PM.
Corsair 115 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 11th November 2012, 09:48 PM   #152
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I honestly don't give a damn one way or the other. Just be consistent. As long as the state is involved with marriage then I will fight like hell to see to it gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights.
I think this attitude is very common, and even more common among supporters of gay marriage than among opponents.

And so, since people don't care what marriage is, I say why have it at all? "I don't care what it is as long as everyone gets it!" is kind of weak as a rallying cry. It's kind of like "I don't care what it is, but, by God we shouldn't let the queers have it."



Of course, if the truth be told, I don't really believe that, but there is something I do believe. I do believe that our current society's attitude toward marriage really is, "It's none of your *********** business." Marriage is whatever the two people involved think it is, except that if one of them decides he or she disagrees, it can be ended without cause or penalty. I do think that's worse than no marriage at all.

Therefore, I would like to see it thrown out as a civil institution, and replaced with one or more variations on civil union, that are at least official, well understood, and do not impose unwanted restrictions on the parties, but allow those parties to voluntarily accept those restrictions if that sort of restrictive agreement is what the parties desire.

And should a man be allowed to enter into such an agreement with another man? Sure, why not? It's his choice, and not some sort of outmoded tradition with no real meaning in the modern world.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 11th November 2012, 09:53 PM   #153
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,921
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And so, since people don't care what marriage is, I say why have it at all? "I don't care what it is as long as everyone gets it!" is kind of weak as a rallying cry. It's kind of like "I don't care what it is, but, by God we shouldn't let the queers have it."
That's absurd. One is calling for equal rights and the other is hateful bigotry. Where did you get the idea that those were equivalent?

Quote:
Therefore, I would like to see it thrown out as a civil institution...
Like I said, good luck with that.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I think I'll reroute my trip
I wonder if they'd think I'd flipped.
If I went to LA, via Omaha.
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 11th November 2012, 10:03 PM   #154
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Rights and privileges. Is there anything else to marriage?


Here's what I'm getting at. People who support gay marriage tend to speak in exactly those terms. They demand various rights and privileges associated with marriage, but if someone starts talking about duties and responsibilities, they tell those people it's none of their *********** business.

It seems to me that we ought not be granting any sort of rights and priviliges to people who enter into long term sexual relationships. It really is none of my business, so you should leave me out of it. Completely out of it. Totally out of it. Don't tie up local bureaucrats issuing licenses. Don't tie up local judges when you decide you don't care to stay together any more.

Gay or straight, poly or mono, I shouldn't care who you sleep with, so leave me and my tax dollars and my insurance dollars out of it. Do what you will.


Unless you can make some sort of case that I, as a citizen of your shared society, ought to care about the nature of your sexual relationships, then you shouldn't be demanding that I, through my elected officials, give you a license to carry on as you wish.

Now, if you and another person wish to enter into some sort of mutual property sharing agreement, I don't have any objection, but I fail to see why it should be somehow connected with the state's knowledge of the existence of some sort of sexual congress between you and the other person, or between you and some third person with whom you do not have an agreement.


So, to relate this to the specific question of the OP:

Best argument for: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.
Best argument against: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.


I'm not sure whom you've interviewed who demands only the benefits without the responsibilities, but I think perhaps you should get out more.

You say you don't want to get involved with other people's property sharing agreements, but plenty of people, I think, would rather not have to figure out and renegotiate all the details of property, insurance, hospital visitation, notification of events, child custody, succession, immigration, taxes, and yes, responsibility, that marriage puts together rather efficiently, and that's assuming that society and government and whatnot even allow a person to make those arrangements. It's been traditionally pretty hard for gay parents, for example, to negotiate the ins and outs of child custody and care without a framework of marriage to tell unimaginative or bigoted school officials, medical personnel, police, and whatnot, how they must behave.

So you don't want to get involved, fine, but who do you propose should make the rules that determine, for example, who a school allows to take a child home at night? If you die married, your second cousin can't steal the house you leave your spouse. If you die in a state where you cannot marry, there's a good chance he can. If you're married, your alien spouse cannot be denied residency at the drop of a hat. If you're not, he or she can, children notwithstanding.

If, as happened to me this spring, you're involved in a near fatal accident, and you're married, the rescue squad will call your spouse, and there will be someone to comfort you when you wake up in the hospital. If you cannot marry this will probably not happen, and there's a good chance that your spouse will be turned away at the door if he does find out.

Sure, every one of these issues and others can be sorted out one at at time, and a new set of standards and laws figured out, etc. etc. But why? The idea of a long term permanent romantic relationship (yeah, sex is involved!) seems, after all, to be a pretty good way of defining how people relate, and over a long period we've gotten together a pretty efficient package of rights, responsibilities and protections. I'll admit that I'm a bit biased. I love being married, and find it suits me to a tee, but aside from that i think it's a pretty efficient setup.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 11th November 2012, 10:14 PM   #155
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I'm not sure whom you've interviewed who demands only the benefits without the responsibilities, but I think perhaps you should get out more.....
Ok, let me interview you.

If you are married, you are required, by law, to.................what exactly? Anything?

In our society, I can't think of anything. The closest thing is that upon stating a desire to dissolve the union, you must agree to have a judge decide what is and isn't joint property, and how to divide it, but you aren't required to actually declare anything in particular to be joint property. You can exclude anything you want.

ETA: And "joint property" can also include access to future earnings (i.e. alimony), and laws vary widely by state. In general, alimony is not what it used to be. It's usually temporary and not all that substantial. Marriage does not provide much economic security these days.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 11th November 2012 at 10:21 PM.
Meadmaker 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 11th November 2012, 10:55 PM   #156
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,965
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ok, let me interview you.

If you are married, you are required, by law, to.................what exactly? Anything?

In our society, I can't think of anything. The closest thing is that upon stating a desire to dissolve the union, you must agree to have a judge decide what is and isn't joint property, and how to divide it, but you aren't required to actually declare anything in particular to be joint property. You can exclude anything you want.

ETA: And "joint property" can also include access to future earnings (i.e. alimony), and laws vary widely by state. In general, alimony is not what it used to be. It's usually temporary and not all that substantial. Marriage does not provide much economic security these days.
Of course, most of marriage is predicated on its lasting, and that is privileges more than responsibilities, but it sort of depends on circumstances. We both can hire lawyers and ensure that neither is impoverished or enriched unduly by a divorce. While we're married, we have certain responsibilities to each other which are not automatic. We are liable for at least some of each other's maintenance, payment of debts, etc. Some responsibilities may count as a privilege for one side, a responsibility for the other. We can't lock the door and tell the other to go to hell. We can't refuse to support children. The status of some unpleaantness is changed when it's classified as domestic abuse. Some of the responsibilities are negative but not necessarily to society. I can't take welfare if my wife is well off. I can't qualify for low income housing if my spouse owns a vacation home.

Sure, most of what we get from marriage is benefits, especially if we stay married. It still seems like a pretty useful institution that would be hard to do without.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 11th November 2012, 11:09 PM   #157
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: A floating island above the clouds
Posts: 24,284
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
I honestly don't give a damn one way or the other. Just be consistent. As long as the state is involved with marriage then I will fight like hell to see to it gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights. I will continue to live with my wife whether we are married or not. Let me know when you get the state out of marriage... oh, and good luck with that.
Government isn't involved for the religious aspect, but rather for the legal enforcement of the marriage, as well as any dissolution later.

People treat the government's role as if it is some ethical legitimizer rather than the function of a subservient enforcer, which is a utilitarian activity.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina 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 12th November 2012, 04:14 AM   #158
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 28,413
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Of course, most of marriage is predicated on its lasting, and that is privileges more than responsibilities, but it sort of depends on circumstances. We both can hire lawyers and ensure that neither is impoverished or enriched unduly by a divorce. While we're married, we have certain responsibilities to each other which are not automatic. We are liable for at least some of each other's maintenance, payment of debts, etc. Some responsibilities may count as a privilege for one side, a responsibility for the other. We can't lock the door and tell the other to go to hell. We can't refuse to support children. The status of some unpleaantness is changed when it's classified as domestic abuse. Some of the responsibilities are negative but not necessarily to society. I can't take welfare if my wife is well off. I can't qualify for low income housing if my spouse owns a vacation home.

Sure, most of what we get from marriage is benefits, especially if we stay married. It still seems like a pretty useful institution that would be hard to do without.
Well the is the responsibility to be financially ruined if your spouse gets a serious long term illness. That is a responsibility.
__________________
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 12th November 2012, 05:40 AM   #159
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Joint debts are just the flip side of joint assets. Both sides of the ledger get divided at the time of dissolution.

So the "responsibility" of marriage is to behave like a joint economic entity until such time as one of the parties cares to stop, and then submit to a judge's agreement on how to divide the assets and liabilities.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 12th November 2012, 05:45 AM   #160
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,749
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
That's absurd. One is calling for equal rights and the other is hateful bigotry. Where did you get the idea that those were equivalent?
They both ignore what it is that is being granted or withheld, and put the issue of who gets it at the fore. We don't know what it is that they are getting, but we are very concerned about who gets it.

One version is hateful. The other is kind. Both are meaningless.
__________________
Dave

On vacation.
Meadmaker 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 01:21 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.