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 13th November 2012, 06:08 AM   #241
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 27,933
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That's not a reasonable inference from anything I said.

The motivation for regulating sexual relationships between adults is based on the fact that those sexual relationships can result in babies. Sex can result in babies on purpose. Sex can result in babies by accident. Sex can result in babies whether or not you are married, and you can even make a baby with one person while you are married to a different person.
So as those things have nothing to do with children why keep them? Why should my grandfather have been allowed to marry in his seventies to a woman of similar age?

If marriage is about kids you need to get rid of most of the modern effects of marriage.
Quote:
Our marriage law should be centered on that fact. Government should not give a hoot about you being in love with anyone. That's your business. However, because of the baby issue and a whole host of correlated issues that are all associated with baby making, government has a legitimate role in interfering with adult sexual relationships.
How do you reconcile this statement with keeping all those non child effects of marriage? You want there to be no legal difference between roommates and spouses. So own that change and not shirk away from its implications which are very broad.
[Quote
But enough about me. What do you think? Why is it that there ought to be this thing called "marriage"? What purpose does it serve? Should government be concerned about love and sex? If we choose to have something called marriage, should it be the same for every married couple?[/quote]

Because it is how a great majority of people choose to structure their lives. I like that people can get marriage visas even though I am married to a citizen. I like that spouses get social security benefits after the death of a spouse. I like that you can leave property to then and your ******* relatives can't fight it as much.
Quote:
Or do you not care, as long as there is no discrimination?
I care. But they are different arguments. What marriage should be is separate from should you discriminate in it based on sex.
__________________
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 online now   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 13th November 2012, 06:26 AM   #242
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: 15,941
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.
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 13th November 2012, 06:29 AM   #243
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: 15,941
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
Well, we can always agree to disagree.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I 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 13th November 2012, 08:55 AM   #244
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Talking

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So as those things have nothing to do with children why keep them? Why should my grandfather have been allowed to marry in his seventies to a woman of similar age?

If marriage is about kids you need to get rid of most of the modern effects of marriage.
I don't "need" to do anything. If a government wishes to regulate sexual activity that results in babymaking, one way to do it is to regulate all sexual activity.


Quote:
You want there to be no legal difference between roommates and spouses.
Actually, I don't, but under the current system of marriage, there's not much difference. As long as we have no fault, no penalty, divorces, then a spouse is pretty much a roommate you are having sex with. The individuals involved might attach some other significance to the relationship, but that's their business, not mine.

So a lot of people want something that allows two people to conveniently share property rights, and they want to allow them to bring people into the country if they are sexual partners, and to conveniently designate someone for the types of decisions that have to be made by "next of kin". And they want to conveniently terminate that relationship when one of them decides they no longer want those things. OK. Those are great things to want. Do you want to call that marriage?

And, suppose someone else wants something more than that? Suppose I want to share property with someone, but I want an additional term in that contract. I want a clause in our property sharing agreement that says that if the other person engages in sexual intercourse with any individual who is not me, I have the right to terminate our property sharing agreement, and the right to favorable treatment during the property disposition process. Should government allow the creation of such a contract?

This stuff becomes pretty important because every time a healthy young woman goes to bed with a man, pregnancy is at least a remote possibility. If she is capable of having a child, then those few minutes of recreation could carry lifelong consequences. And it's worse than that. Suppose she is on birth control, and that birth control is successful, but her husband chooses to go to bed with a different woman, and impregnates that woman. Exactly who is responsible for what in those situations?

Those aren't easy issues to work out, although in the days of our ancestors, it was somewhat easier. Marriage law worked it all out.

We don't follow those old rules anymore, but we haven't created a consistent set of rules that are better suited to a society in which contraception is available. I think we should.

And then if two men want to play by those rules, more power to them.
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 13th November 2012, 09:23 AM   #245
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
You can't quite say, having stated that children, and specifically, the incentivizing of child bearing, are issues, that you have not mentioned any issues.


Although I favor marriage for a number of reasons you do not, I agree that creating a family unit that is conducive to raising children is a major issue in what marriage needs to be, and that if you think about what that entails, you may realize that a number of the other benefits, which might be considered free lunch for the childless couple, are important for that.
Well, yes, I mentioned it, but only after Avalon brought it up.

What I've really been getting at is that if we want to talk about marriage as a societal agreement, we ought to be able to identify some sort of benefit to society for its existence. Too often we talk about it as a nice, convenient way for the people involved to get something.

I don't think that's much of a reason for it to exist.

I think marriage could provide benefits to society, and it traditionally has provided those benefits, but right now, those benefits have been weakened or eliminated. What's left is some ease of filling out paperwork.

When I hear advocates for gay marriage talk about comparing the love of two men to the love of a man and a woman, my reaction is complete indifference. And? I should care that they love each other because....?

On the other hand, Avalon pointed out something that actually matters to me. Your kids will be my neighbors, and employees, and employers, and Presidents. How they grow up matters to me. I'm perfectly willing to craft marriage laws in such a way that those kids have a better chance at a great upbringing, but when people bring that up, other people say that their grandmother got married after she was incapable of having kids, so that shouldn't matter.

I beg to differ.
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 13th November 2012, 10:48 AM   #246
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
>.> why should government care at all if you're married and CAN'T have kids. If you can't then government doesn't have anything to say about it.

Now...if you CAN then by your logic meadmaker the only marriages that government SHOULD interfere with are those of couples who can have kids (sucks to be a young virile heterosexual couple...the G-man is coming after you -.-). That doesn't mean they should prevent marriages at all though. You can have childless couples and no government to bother them; they should only focus on those that CAN have kids.

Interfering on couples that cannot have kids is nonsensical. At the very least a childless couple provides no harm to society (remember...they're also your neighbors, your workers...I mean that may be hard for you to remember but I'm 24 and I am still part of your future) whereas a couple that can have children provide a capacity to do harm or benefit. If anything the childless option is the safest route. If you care about the kids, your potential neighbors and workers, then care about them. For those that don't have kids you honestly shouldn't have anything to say on it then. You definitely don't have anything to say against it because it doesn't effect you at all.

I think there's a massive flaw in your logic though. You see, marriage does not equal babies. Sex = a potential for babies. This potential is offset by biological factors and those factors can be influenced by environment. Marriage does not play a massive role in that at all. I tell you this...I've seen a baby come out of an unmarried woman. It wasn't miraculous. At all.

So the issue of marriage and babies is a nonstarter anyways. The question of a government's control in baby factories shouldn't consider marriage as much as it does environmental factors. And personally I don't really think the G-man should say much on when you can have a baby nor play a role in the decision. Perhaps the ethics...perhaps.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 13th November 2012 at 11:00 AM.
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 11:31 AM   #247
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
And personally I don't really think the G-man should say much on when you can have a baby nor play a role in the decision.
^This.

Even if marriage is an institution concerned solely with procreation (as has been proposed), I see no justification for the state's involvement.
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 11:48 AM   #248
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
^This.

Even if marriage is an institution concerned solely with procreation (as has been proposed), I see no justification for the state's involvement.
I did leave a caveat in as far as ethics. I do think there is a legal imperative to assess the ethics of procreation when it comes to a father forcing an abortion or even a birth to an at-the-moment underage daughter and those ethics may change with the passing of time (zeitgeist and all that). I don't like painting with a wide/constant brush =\
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 12:02 PM   #249
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
I did leave a caveat in as far as ethics. I do think there is a legal imperative to assess the ethics of procreation when it comes to a father forcing an abortion or even a birth to an at-the-moment underage daughter and those ethics may change with the passing of time (zeitgeist and all that). I don't like painting with a wide/constant brush =\
Those sound like decent exceptions, but I'm not sure what they have to do with marriage specifically. A soon-to-be-father forcing a woman to abort would qualify as an infringement upon her autonomy, an area I think society is justified (and obligated) to defend.

I guess my point here is to distinguish between legislating procreation and legislating other actions that involve procreation.
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 12:11 PM   #250
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
Those sound like decent exceptions, but I'm not sure what they have to do with marriage specifically. A soon-to-be-father forcing a woman to abort would qualify as an infringement upon her autonomy, an area I think society is justified (and obligated) to defend.

I guess my point here is to distinguish between legislating procreation and legislating other actions that involve procreation.
Right in the context of what i had written I was referring just to government interaction within babymaking. I had hoped earlier I had insisted that the government interaction of marriage is demonstrably exclusive from interaction to babymaking. To try to tie the two together is a nonstarter.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 12:25 PM   #251
bikerdruid
hermit hippy weirdo
 
bikerdruid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: green island autonomous zone
Posts: 7,370
Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

honestly, there are no reasonable arguments against same-sex marriage.
any that claim there are, are merely imposing bronze age morality on modern life.
__________________
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 13th November 2012, 12:57 PM   #252
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Right in the context of what i had written I was referring just to government interaction within babymaking. I had hoped earlier I had insisted that the government interaction of marriage is demonstrably exclusive from interaction to babymaking. To try to tie the two together is a nonstarter.
Ah... gotcha. Thanks for the clarification!
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 03:09 PM   #253
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
So the issue of marriage and babies is a nonstarter anyways.
And yet, somewhere in America, I'll bet that today there was a divorce court hearing in which a man brought up the fact that his soon to be ex wife was pregnant with another man's child. I wonder if the judge informed the man that that was of no consequence, because the issue of marriage and babies is a nonstarter.

She might have, because in modern America, you're pretty much right. A lot of people would say that it's totally irrelevant.

ETA: A thought occurred to me. Instead of divorce court, let us assume that the husband and wife decided to stay married. If the woman were single, the father of the child would be liable for child support. Would he be in this case? In modern American law, if you conceive a child with someone else's spouse, can you be held liable financially for child support? If babies and marriage are a nonstarter, you certainly should be. I don't know whether or not you actually are these days. My guess is that you are not. Is that fair?

I don't know the answer to those questions. I don't know if you are liable under modern American law, and I'm not sure you should be.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 13th November 2012 at 03:46 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 13th November 2012, 04:21 PM   #254
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And yet, somewhere in America, I'll bet that today there was a divorce court hearing in which a man brought up the fact that his soon to be ex wife was pregnant with another man's child. I wonder if the judge informed the man that that was of no consequence, because the issue of marriage and babies is a nonstarter.

She might have, because in modern America, you're pretty much right. A lot of people would say that it's totally irrelevant.

ETA: A thought occurred to me. Instead of divorce court, let us assume that the husband and wife decided to stay married. If the woman were single, the father of the child would be liable for child support. Would he be in this case? In modern American law, if you conceive a child with someone else's spouse, can you be held liable financially for child support? If babies and marriage are a nonstarter, you certainly should be. I don't know whether or not you actually are these days. My guess is that you are not. Is that fair?

I don't know the answer to those questions. I don't know if you are liable under modern American law, and I'm not sure you should be.
Um you don't understand divorce. You don't need a reason for divorce; you can have a "no fault" divorce. Divorce is PURELY to distribute assets gained during the marriage (depending on nuptials), providing for the children if any and spousal support (since again marriage is a civil matter often marriages are have economic advantages).

You don't need a reason under the sun for a divorce. Sure the husband may be extra mad but he legally it's not relevant (read: nonstarter) to the divorce though it may be relevant to how the assets will be distributed. The "child" stuff is actually independent of divorce. You could have the same proceedings for distribution of assets BUT not in a divorce. People have them all the time, it's called child support; you don't need to be married to have to deal with it. I'm telling you this marriage/kid thing you're on...they're legally exclusive.

When you said:

Quote:
I wonder if the judge informed the man that that was of no consequence, because the issue of marriage and babies is a nonstarter.
The judge is going to reach into his pocket, pull it out, demonstrate it's empty and then say with such reverence "I don't have a <blank> to give about that"

Now as to your second question, the court presumes the "Husband" to be the father of all children unless proof is provided a child is not his. The court then seeks out the biological father and that guy will pay child support.

Modern America my ass, this has been legislation for awhile. depending on where you live. Believe it or not Alabama passed no-fault divorce before New York did. I'm still in shock at that...
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 13th November 2012 at 04:42 PM.
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 05:09 PM   #255
BStrong
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: California
Posts: 5,686
To me it's very simple.

If I and my girlfriend have the right to go to City Hall and recieve a marriage license and have the marriage ceremony performed by a city official, there is no legal justification for any other citizen of either sex to be denied that same right.

I have no argument against.
BStrong 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 13th November 2012, 05:11 PM   #256
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Um you don't understand divorce.
Oh come now. I wrote this.

Originally Posted by me
She might have, because in modern America, you're pretty much right. A lot of people would say that it's totally irrelevant.
I wrote "pretty much", because in some states such a thing would actually be considered relevant, even at the dawn of the 21st century. Mostly, though, it's true, and I'm sure the holdout states will eventually join the majority.


Yes, marriage is simply an institution that exists for the convenience of the married people, and can be dissolved at any time and for any reason (actually for no reason at all) with no consequences.


Seems rather useless to me, but I suppose it's harmless enough.
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 13th November 2012, 05:30 PM   #257
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Oh come now. I wrote this.



I wrote "pretty much", because in some states such a thing would actually be considered relevant, even at the dawn of the 21st century. Mostly, though, it's true, and I'm sure the holdout states will eventually join the majority.


Yes, marriage is simply an institution that exists for the convenience of the married people, and can be dissolved at any time and for any reason (actually for no reason at all) with no consequences.


Seems rather useless to me, but I suppose it's harmless enough.
You should check out the decline in spousal abuse and murder of female spouses after those holdout states decided to be progressive rather than oppressive.

Also I would argue that marriage is a matter of convenience sure, but it's actually a pretty significant convenience; so much so that after a divorce somebody may end up paying to reestablish said convenience. People like exclusive unions, but not everyone likes them all the time. The good news is they don't have to be stuck. The greatest shame is that children do not have the faculties nor the legal power to choose their own parents because I bet dollars to donuts a lot of them, if capable, would opt out of their family. Parenting probably isn't for everyone.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 13th November 2012 at 05:31 PM.
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 05:31 PM   #258
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,101
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Well, yes, I mentioned it, but only after Avalon brought it up.

What I've really been getting at is that if we want to talk about marriage as a societal agreement, we ought to be able to identify some sort of benefit to society for its existence. Too often we talk about it as a nice, convenient way for the people involved to get something.

I don't think that's much of a reason for it to exist.

I think marriage could provide benefits to society, and it traditionally has provided those benefits, but right now, those benefits have been weakened or eliminated. What's left is some ease of filling out paperwork.

When I hear advocates for gay marriage talk about comparing the love of two men to the love of a man and a woman, my reaction is complete indifference. And? I should care that they love each other because....?

On the other hand, Avalon pointed out something that actually matters to me. Your kids will be my neighbors, and employees, and employers, and Presidents. How they grow up matters to me. I'm perfectly willing to craft marriage laws in such a way that those kids have a better chance at a great upbringing, but when people bring that up, other people say that their grandmother got married after she was incapable of having kids, so that shouldn't matter.

I beg to differ.
I can see a lot of ideas in how marriage could be fine tuned and made more specific, but I have yet to see any good ideas on how that might be accomplished without unforeseen problems and fairness issues that might require an agency to mediate, who pays, who governs it, and how ambiguous situations might be approached, changes made when circumstances change. It seems that marriage as it now stands is a pretty workable set of compromises, aimed at making families work. Although the general preference of much of the public for stable monogamous relationships is a big part, the welfare of children is also a major issue, and I still think there are a lot of issues that overlap and which are most easily combined. I suppose we could fine tune marriage law so that it changes the status of a couple depending on how quickly they can or cannot conceive a child, whether they find a good adoption agency, whether a child dies, and so forth, but finding a set of rules that works pretty well for a large number of people, which a large number of people think is appropriate, seems like not such a bad alternative.
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 05:33 PM   #259
R.A.F.
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,204
There is something I've never been able to understand, and perhaps someone here who thinks gay marriage should be illegal can "help" me understand.

What is it about gays getting married that you find so intolerable? What direct effect would gays getting married have on you, personally?

See the thing is, gays getting married doesn't effect me, personally in any way, shape, or form, so I simply do not understand how it can effect others at all.
R.A.F. 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 13th November 2012, 05:35 PM   #260
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.
You have ZERO idea what marriage is about. Marriage is about monogamy, love, building a life together, arguing , hogging the covers, holding your spouses hand on the last day of their life, or vice versa...your.

Marriage is the commitment that two adults make to each other. Children may or may not come. If there are no children that in no any way has anything to do with marriage.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

Last edited by Alt+F4; 13th November 2012 at 05:43 PM.
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 13th November 2012, 05:39 PM   #261
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
See the thing is, gays getting married doesn't effect me, personally in any way, shape, or form, so I simply do not understand how it can effect others at all.
That's what I don't get either. A straight person could go to 1,000 gay weddings, live by a 1,000 gay married couples and it would not make that person gay! Why do all the anti-gay marriage folks seem to equate gay marriage with the flu. You can't "catch the gay".
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 05:44 PM   #262
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
That's what I don't get either. A straight person could go to 1,000 gay weddings, live by a 1,000 gay married couples and it would not make that person gay! Why do all the anti-gay marriage folks seem to equate gay marriage with the flu. You can't "catch the gay".
I don't think it's like that. Many people find gays (or general sodomy) to be abhorrent and living near them/tolerating butt-blasting shouldn't be required by them. It'd be like living in a nice neighborhood but your douche neighbor keeps putting pink flamingos in his front yard...that guy...
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 06:01 PM   #263
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Many people find gays (or general sodomy) to be abhorrent and living near them/tolerating butt-blasting shouldn't be required by them. It'd be like living in a nice neighborhood but your douche neighbor keeps putting pink flamingos in his front yard...that guy...
Ok, let's assume a hypothetical. Couple A (straight) lives in a home between Couple B (gay males) and Couple C (lesbians). All three couples are legally married and are good neighbors to each other. In addition the three couples mind their own business.

What is the problem? Who is the one with the problem? I think it is the straight couple who can't stand the fact the neighbors might be having gay sex.
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 06:06 PM   #264
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Ok, let's assume a hypothetical. Couple A (straight) lives in a home between Couple B (gay males) and Couple C (lesbians). All three couples are legally married and are good neighbors to each other. In addition the three couples mind their own business.

What is the problem? Who is the one with the problem? I think it is the straight couple who can't stand the fact the neighbors might be having gay sex.
No you see Couple D exist and Couple D is reinforced to not approve of the gayness. They have learned it's a bad shameful thing and people shouldn't do shameful things and good folks like Couple D should not have to tolerate the gayness.

So whatever can be used, be it rhetoric (Couple D loves rhetoric!) misguided attempts to attach marriage to babymaking, "think of the children" arguments, whatever can be grasped must be used by Couple D to stop the gayness. Oh they also think Couple B and C belong in Hell, but Couple A...them some good folk. Also Couple D live on the other side of the country but hate knows no borders.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 06:16 PM   #265
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Department of Abandoned Places
Posts: 10,000
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Why should my grandfather have been allowed to marry in his seventies to a woman of similar age?
Excellent for your grandpa, good for him and your step-grandma

Last summer I went to a wedding of a couple also in in their seventies, first marriage for both of them. It was the happiest romance, wedding and marriage I think I ever have known. Marriage is about the commitment of the couple, it's not about having children. Sometimes when children are out of the picture it makes the marriage easier.
__________________
"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 13th November 2012, 06:18 PM   #266
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 27,933
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Excellent for your grandpa, good for him and your step-grandma
They are great, and she is a much better person than my grandmother.
__________________
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 online now   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 13th November 2012, 06:21 PM   #267
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
the welfare of children is also a major issue,
I don't know. Lowpro thinks it's a non-starter issue, and no one seems to have taken issue with him.
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 13th November 2012, 06:25 PM   #268
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't know. Lowpro thinks it's a non-starter issue, and no one seems to have taken issue with him.
Dude I thought I made it extremely clear:

Originally Posted by Lowpro
The "child" stuff is actually independent of divorce. You could have the same proceedings for distribution of assets BUT not in a divorce. People have them all the time, it's called child support;
The "welfare of the child" can be considered and legally handled completely independent of a marriage. Tying them together as inclusive is a nonstarter. We would care for the welfare of a child if the couple were married or were not married; the existence* welfare of a child and the existence of a marriage are not held together in a chinese fingertrap -.-

*I had argued before that the existence of a child is independent of marriage. While that's true and I maintain it as true while the rules of Biology still exist I also made a sub-point that in the case of the welfare of a child a marriage does not need to exist for a child to be cared for. Some would argue that it takes a marriage for a child to grow up "well" whatever the heck kind of scale you measure that on. I would argue that a child benefits most from a stable relationship among peers; that doesn't mean people their own age group but everyone. And a marriage...hah...hahahahaha when divorce was completely illegal do you think children didn't suffer the pains of an abusive relationship and grow up all sorts of crazy? No it's not a stable marriage, it's a stable community that minimizes stress. A marriage dollars to donuts will not compliment that every time.
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 13th November 2012 at 06:36 PM.
Lowpro 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 13th November 2012, 06:32 PM   #269
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by Lowpro View Post
Dude I thought I made it extremely clear:
You did make it extremely clear. The welfare of the child and marriage aren't related. Right? Any connection between marriage and children is a non-starter, right? That's what I was pointing out to bruto.


He said it was a majior issue, but you think it's a non-starter. You should be correcting him, not me. As a matter of law in most states, I'm pretty sure you are 100% correct.
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 13th November 2012, 06:34 PM   #270
Lowpro
Illuminator
 
Lowpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 4,897
I made an additional comment that might clarify your remark. Interestingly enough the argument you make is so mundane that I tried to nip it in the bud. I mean is that how marriage proposals go?:

"Honey we've been together awhile and we've just been great. But we're not stable right now until we get married. This is a ticking time bomb but I just know that once we get married we can actually be stable. Stability will spring forth in all directions! Also my grandparents don't understand biology and they think babies only come out from a wedded couple. I don't want to disappoint them in their twilight years so do me a solid on this"
__________________
"If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

Last edited by Lowpro; 13th November 2012 at 06:40 PM.
Lowpro 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, 03:17 AM   #271
linusrichard
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lansing, Mich.
Posts: 2,707
I'd be more impressed with the government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-game argument if I had ever, ever seen it raised outside the context of a discussion of ending gender-based marriage discrimination.

"I know some people are arguing that we shouldn't have 'whites only' and 'blacks only' drinking fountains, and that all drinking fountains should just be for everyone. But really, why do we even have drinking fountains? You have water at home. If you want to have water in the park, fill up a bottle or jar and bring it with you. Why should the municipal government be in the business of running these contraptions that provide free water in parks, etc? I suspect a lot of people aren't even that thirsty. Plus, someone always leaves their gum in them. Better to just scrap the whole idea."
__________________
"We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle
linusrichard 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, 03:35 AM   #272
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by linusrichard View Post
I'd be more impressed with the government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-game argument if I had ever, ever seen it raised outside the context of a discussion of ending gender-based marriage discrimination.

"I know some people are arguing that we shouldn't have 'whites only' and 'blacks only' drinking fountains, and that all drinking fountains should just be for everyone. But really, why do we even have drinking fountains? You have water at home. If you want to have water in the park, fill up a bottle or jar and bring it with you. Why should the municipal government be in the business of running these contraptions that provide free water in parks, etc? I suspect a lot of people aren't even that thirsty. Plus, someone always leaves their gum in them. Better to just scrap the whole idea."
This ^^^
__________________
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, 03:37 AM   #273
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 27,933
Originally Posted by linusrichard View Post
I'd be more impressed with the government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-game argument if I had ever, ever seen it raised outside the context of a discussion of ending gender-based marriage discrimination.

"I know some people are arguing that we shouldn't have 'whites only' and 'blacks only' drinking fountains, and that all drinking fountains should just be for everyone. But really, why do we even have drinking fountains? You have water at home. If you want to have water in the park, fill up a bottle or jar and bring it with you. Why should the municipal government be in the business of running these contraptions that provide free water in parks, etc? I suspect a lot of people aren't even that thirsty. Plus, someone always leaves their gum in them. Better to just scrap the whole idea."
I see it in discussions of polygamy outside of a ending sex based discrimination in marriage context. The thing is that those with these ideas don't typically start threads, they air their views in threads that are discussing marriage. The ones that do that are commonly about gay 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 online now   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, 04:46 AM   #274
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by linusrichard View Post
I'd be more impressed with the government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-game argument if I had ever, ever seen it raised outside the context of a discussion of ending gender-based marriage discrimination.
Maybe that's the only place you've ever looked?

But even more accurately, it's what ponderingturtle said. Threads (and editorials, and media coverage, and discussion in general) about marriage these days are about gay marriage, so all discussion of marriage takes place in that context.

A couple of people in this thread have advocated eliminating marriage altogether as a civil institution, but I want to emphasize that I am not actually one of those people. What I have said is that the institution of marriage as practiced today in the United States is sufficiently useless that you may as well get rid of it. That doesn't mean I want to get rid of it.
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 14th November 2012, 06:16 AM   #275
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
The purely legal side of marriage is extremely useful. It creates a cheap and convenient method for people who plan to live to together and support each other to tell the government that and be regarded domestically as a unit -- pooling resources, co-owning things, and gaining the relational benefits of being close family.

Which is why if it's the legal benefits that interest us, we really should open it up to non-romantic bonds of the same sort. I bring up siblings a lot because I personally know of unmarried sibling pairs (two sisters, two brothers, a brother and sister) who live together and closely support each other. Completely removed from the context of "marriage," they are excellent examples of where the legal benefits and conveniences would make perfect sense -- but they are explicitly barred from getting married pretty much everywhere.
AvalonXQ 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, 06:41 AM   #276
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 13,101
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You did make it extremely clear. The welfare of the child and marriage aren't related. Right? Any connection between marriage and children is a non-starter, right? That's what I was pointing out to bruto.


He said it was a majior issue, but you think it's a non-starter. You should be correcting him, not me. As a matter of law in most states, I'm pretty sure you are 100% correct.
He can correct of course any way he wants. In the meantime, though, I stand by the notion that, although it is far from the only consideration, and marriage is considered by many if not most to be an overall social benefit even for the childless, child welfare remains a major consideration. It was made so from the very start when Vermont's Supreme Court mandated fair benefits for gay couples back in the 1990's. It's certainly true that when a non married couple has a child, marriage is not necessary and both parents are liable for support, but without marriage things get pretty confusing when dealing with adopted children, stepchildren, surrogate births and children from former marriages. Arrangements can always be made by those who want them, but marriage provides them automatically whether you do or not. Support is not the only issue here, though it may be the most important. It covers a pretty broad spectrum, I think, from the most obvious and obtrusive issues of who pays the bills or takes a kid to the hospital to minor but real ones like how many parents a child is officially considered to have and whether he or she is officially considered legitimate. The ramifications of marriage, as gay couples have stressed for a long time, are not only financial and practical, but social. This is so whether you think it's a good idea or a bad one.
__________________
"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 14th November 2012, 07:39 AM   #277
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 11,698
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
The purely legal side of marriage is extremely useful. It creates a cheap and convenient method for people who plan to live to together and support each other to tell the government that and be regarded domestically as a unit -- pooling resources, co-owning things, and gaining the relational benefits of being close family.

Which is why if it's the legal benefits that interest us, we really should open it up to non-romantic bonds of the same sort. I bring up siblings a lot because I personally know of unmarried sibling pairs (two sisters, two brothers, a brother and sister) who live together and closely support each other. Completely removed from the context of "marriage," they are excellent examples of where the legal benefits and conveniences would make perfect sense -- but they are explicitly barred from getting married pretty much everywhere.
Can anyone offer a rational argument against Avalon's suggeestion?
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 14th November 2012, 08:31 AM   #278
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 27,933
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Can anyone offer a rational argument against Avalon's suggeestion?
I don't see a problem with it. But then I find laws against incest between consenting adults to be a bit more suspect than many.
__________________
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 online now   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, 08:45 AM   #279
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by linusrichard View Post
I'd be more impressed with the government-should-get-out-of-the-marriage-game argument if I had ever, ever seen it raised outside the context of a discussion of ending gender-based marriage discrimination.
As ponderingturtle said, popular discussions about gay rights will attract people like me who think marriage is an inane institution. To expound on this, I don't usually talk about marriage except with my close friends who already know my position. For the most part, I think people aren't going to critically analyze such an ubiquitous value and see no point raising the issue.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
The purely legal side of marriage is extremely useful. It creates a cheap and convenient method for people who plan to live to together and support each other to tell the government that and be regarded domestically as a unit -- pooling resources, co-owning things, and gaining the relational benefits of being close family.

Which is why if it's the legal benefits that interest us, we really should open it up to non-romantic bonds of the same sort. I bring up siblings a lot because I personally know of unmarried sibling pairs (two sisters, two brothers, a brother and sister) who live together and closely support each other. Completely removed from the context of "marriage," they are excellent examples of where the legal benefits and conveniences would make perfect sense -- but they are explicitly barred from getting married pretty much everywhere.
Or remove those legal benefits entirely? Asked differently, why should couples (what about polygamy?) receive benefits not bestowed to others? If marriage were merely a convenient way to bundle legal rights that were available to everyone through other channels, I would have no problem with it. That's just not the case though.

Should siblings be allowed to get married? Sure... why not? As long as all involved parties are consenting adults of sound mind, I really don't care what they do. Let 'em marry. Let 'em screw. The only problem I see from incestuous relationships is when children are conceived, due to the increased chance of genetic disorders in offspring. However, I think our technology in the area of preventing child birth (prophylactics, surgery, abortion) has essentially eradicated this problem.
__________________
"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, 08:55 AM   #280
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 55,659
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Can anyone offer a rational argument against Avalon's suggeestion?
I'm happy to consider it. When folks are demanding those benefits then we can have a national dialog about it like we have had with gay marriage. Those individuals can petition the courts to seek change and experts can testify as they have in the many gay and lesbian cases that have reached the court. Most notably Prop 8.

Until then it's a red herring. It belongs to the same set of things as shiny objects and squirrels. It does not inform us about gay marriage. It does not advance the discussion. It's off topic and, IMO, it's intellectually dishonest.
__________________
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 08:12 AM.
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.