Apologies Blaze, but I was under the distinct impression that you'd made it clear you would not support legal gay marriage, just civil unions. Regardless, the classification of them as separate entities is downright stupid, I'm sorry to say.
I happen to agree that a universal civil union system would be ideal, but I fail to see why once you're dealing with civil unions there should be any distinction. Really, once we've removed legal marriages from the picture and replaced them with civil unions there is absolutely no reason to distinguish between same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions.
My ideal system would just be legal civil unions for all, with marriage an entirely irrelevant concept in terms of legality. I'm sure you can see that giving them separate classifications once they're civil unions is just asking for abuse? Would an employer be able to deny spouse health benefits to a straight couple because he chose to only recognise same-sex civil unions? Can't you see that that would pretty much de facto mean that same-sex civil unions would be generally useless for most things, as the majority would simply deny them any validity? In which case we're at a separate and not equal situation which is entirely irrelevant in any case as the term marriage is not in the picture anyway.
WolfDreamer... There is an important distinction to be made between moral authority and protective authority. It's illegal to murder, rape and steal because there are victims of those crimes who must be protected. This is not an issue of morality, but safety. The majority often has the ability to force its views on subjects, but that should not be construed as a right. Would the majority have a right to tell you that since it disagrees with your practice of religion, you should not be allowed to worship whatever deity you worship? It might have the ability, to some degree, but that is not the same as a legal or moral right.
What's the problem?
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Pre-Script Edit-In: For the record, here, I'm using "marriage" and "civil union" as interchangable things. I advocate all couples, regardless of the genders of the couple, being treated equally before the law, weather the secular law gives them "marriages" or "civil unions". If anyone was or would be confused, hope that clears it up.
Graaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh. I spent about the last twenty minutes writing a post and then went back to search for something and hit ctrl+r instead of ctrl+f and didn't hit "Stop" in time... /me twitches. a lot.
As I said last night, your system mightbe simple, and make it a lot easier to discriminate, but just because its simple and easy doesn't mean that either A: it should be simple and easy, and B: that it's worthwhile, even if it should be simple and easy.
It still makes gender be a distinction for marriage, where other distinctions you can draw aren't. The religions of the couple, the races of the couple, how long they've been together, how old they are (if they're above the age of consent) in relation to 0 and in relation to each other, if they're virgins or not, their economic standings ... these are all distinct things, and you can view them as marriages or not, fully well, in your own eyes, as it is - but legally, they're all equal before the eyes of the law. Different ideas, yes, I'll give you that point because it's actually valid. And yet the law says that, for the purposes of the law, these are TREATED as the same. Not are the same, but are treated as the same, regardless of if you personally thing there's a distinction there or not.
I'm for adding "genders of the couple" to that same list. Anything else is just trash. Call it a union, call it a marriage, just make them all equal.
It's not cutting off your perrogative to discriminate against these married couples as a private individual or as a private business - you just have to recognize that legally, they're all equally married.
As it is, your mythic bank could offer "reduced rate loans to newly married couples", and if they denied such a loan to Eve and Mary who'd been married for a decade, Eve and Mary would have no case. Just like they could offer the loan to "married hetrosexual couples", then Adam and Steve would have the same lack of a case. BUT, if they just offer a "reduced rate loan to married couples", they have to give the loan to Eve and Mary, as well as Adam and Steve. (ignoring, of course, the bit about meeting requirements for the loan and the bank's ability to not issue a loan to anyone it damn well pleases not to, even if they meet the requirements - "management may refuse service", and all that)
The same would work for your community. A gated community where you could only buy land if you were "married", then you couldn't refuse to sell to Adam and Steve because they were married, but if it's your private land, you can still say you sell it "only to hetro couples", or heck, "only to couples who've been married for ten years or more", or you could make it a "retirement subdivision", where you only sell it to married couples who're over a certain age. It's all the same thing, and it's the exact same line of thought as the Boy Scouts v. Atheists and Homosexuals. As a private club, so long as they don't recieve federal money, its their right to discriminate against and not associate with anyone they want.
I don't really see why this whole thing about "ZOMG! I'll have to associate with THE GAY COUPLES if sexual orientation ceases to be important for getting legally wed" thing is coming from.
/me hands Blaze a small brown paper bag.
Posted Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:03 pm:
Yes, people will always be forcing their ideologies on other people when they come into conflict. You might have a pretty system like "democracy" that gives you the illusion of making it fair, but what it all comes down to on a contended issue is that one group is going to force their views on another group. You advocate the right of the majority, it seems, to be the default Forcer, and the minority to the be Forcee.
I disagree. Strongly. The phrase gets bandied around a lot, here, lately, but that actually IS "tyrrany of the majority".
When it comes down to two battling ideologies, I'm not going to settle for the popular ideology being the winner. Nope, instead, I will almost always side with the idea that gives more opportunity to more people, if it doesn't hurt anyone (and nope, no one has ever made a compelling case of how recognizing homosexual marriages as equally valid before the law will actually cause anyone actual harm). On the one side in this argument, you have the gay marriage being equally valid, and on the other, you have everything from the "seperate but equal"ites to the people who oppose the whole concept, from true equality on down to even tossing them the scraps of "civil unions" ...
If I side with the minority, the people who are for making "genders of the couples" another thing that just plain doesn't matter in legal regard to your marriage, a bunch of people are given more opportunities and are made happier, and no one gets hurt. If I side with the popular majority, on the other hand, I help squash that opportunity and happiness for the sake of keeping some people who won't really get hurt and have no real reason beyond their own beliefs which aren't even being taken from them, comfortable.
Gee, I wonder who I'm going to side with on that one ...
And bah, ninja'd by Azurain, who replied to WolfDreamer better than I did.
Graaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh. I spent about the last twenty minutes writing a post and then went back to search for something and hit ctrl+r instead of ctrl+f and didn't hit "Stop" in time... /me twitches. a lot.
As I said last night, your system mightbe simple, and make it a lot easier to discriminate, but just because its simple and easy doesn't mean that either A: it should be simple and easy, and B: that it's worthwhile, even if it should be simple and easy.
It still makes gender be a distinction for marriage, where other distinctions you can draw aren't. The religions of the couple, the races of the couple, how long they've been together, how old they are (if they're above the age of consent) in relation to 0 and in relation to each other, if they're virgins or not, their economic standings ... these are all distinct things, and you can view them as marriages or not, fully well, in your own eyes, as it is - but legally, they're all equal before the eyes of the law. Different ideas, yes, I'll give you that point because it's actually valid. And yet the law says that, for the purposes of the law, these are TREATED as the same. Not are the same, but are treated as the same, regardless of if you personally thing there's a distinction there or not.
I'm for adding "genders of the couple" to that same list. Anything else is just trash. Call it a union, call it a marriage, just make them all equal.
It's not cutting off your perrogative to discriminate against these married couples as a private individual or as a private business - you just have to recognize that legally, they're all equally married.
As it is, your mythic bank could offer "reduced rate loans to newly married couples", and if they denied such a loan to Eve and Mary who'd been married for a decade, Eve and Mary would have no case. Just like they could offer the loan to "married hetrosexual couples", then Adam and Steve would have the same lack of a case. BUT, if they just offer a "reduced rate loan to married couples", they have to give the loan to Eve and Mary, as well as Adam and Steve. (ignoring, of course, the bit about meeting requirements for the loan and the bank's ability to not issue a loan to anyone it damn well pleases not to, even if they meet the requirements - "management may refuse service", and all that)
The same would work for your community. A gated community where you could only buy land if you were "married", then you couldn't refuse to sell to Adam and Steve because they were married, but if it's your private land, you can still say you sell it "only to hetro couples", or heck, "only to couples who've been married for ten years or more", or you could make it a "retirement subdivision", where you only sell it to married couples who're over a certain age. It's all the same thing, and it's the exact same line of thought as the Boy Scouts v. Atheists and Homosexuals. As a private club, so long as they don't recieve federal money, its their right to discriminate against and not associate with anyone they want.
I don't really see why this whole thing about "ZOMG! I'll have to associate with THE GAY COUPLES if sexual orientation ceases to be important for getting legally wed" thing is coming from.
/me hands Blaze a small brown paper bag.
Posted Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:03 pm:
This was also in that post I lost.The simple fact is there already things forced on people everyday; from laws against murder to the laws allowing the goverment to take a higher % of my taxes then the guy next to me just because I make more. It all comes down to your opinion. You, Azurain, feel its wrong to deny gay marriage. The majority of the US feel gay marriage is wrong and civil unions are an acceptable alternative.
By your logic if I felt murder, or rape, or tax evasion, etc etc, was moral then it would be wrong to legally mandate it a crime because the majority would be enforcing its view on me. Hopefully you can see your arguement doesn't hold water?
Yes, people will always be forcing their ideologies on other people when they come into conflict. You might have a pretty system like "democracy" that gives you the illusion of making it fair, but what it all comes down to on a contended issue is that one group is going to force their views on another group. You advocate the right of the majority, it seems, to be the default Forcer, and the minority to the be Forcee.
I disagree. Strongly. The phrase gets bandied around a lot, here, lately, but that actually IS "tyrrany of the majority".
When it comes down to two battling ideologies, I'm not going to settle for the popular ideology being the winner. Nope, instead, I will almost always side with the idea that gives more opportunity to more people, if it doesn't hurt anyone (and nope, no one has ever made a compelling case of how recognizing homosexual marriages as equally valid before the law will actually cause anyone actual harm). On the one side in this argument, you have the gay marriage being equally valid, and on the other, you have everything from the "seperate but equal"ites to the people who oppose the whole concept, from true equality on down to even tossing them the scraps of "civil unions" ...
If I side with the minority, the people who are for making "genders of the couples" another thing that just plain doesn't matter in legal regard to your marriage, a bunch of people are given more opportunities and are made happier, and no one gets hurt. If I side with the popular majority, on the other hand, I help squash that opportunity and happiness for the sake of keeping some people who won't really get hurt and have no real reason beyond their own beliefs which aren't even being taken from them, comfortable.
Gee, I wonder who I'm going to side with on that one ...
And bah, ninja'd by Azurain, who replied to WolfDreamer better than I did.
Last edited by StruckingFuggle on Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
-
Deacon
- Shining Adonis
- Posts: 44234
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Lakehills, TX
[quote="EvilPsychoJoe";p="429599"]If you don't want to live near them, don't move there.[/quote]
Heh...what? I'm just curious as to what you're meaning, there.
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="429607"]I advocate all couples, regardless of the genders of the couple, being treated equally before the law, weather the secular law gives them "marriages" or "civil unions". If anyone was or would be confused, hope that clears it up.[/quote]
Well, now I'm confused as to why you're discriminating against domestic partnerships not strictly involving couples, much less advocating (by omission) age discrimination and discrimination against interspecies partnerships.
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="429607"]You might have a pretty system like "democracy" that gives you the illusion of making it fair, but what it all comes down to on a contended issue is that one group is going to force their views on another group.[/quote]
Among humans, that's about as "fair" a system as you're going to get in this inherently unfair life.
Heh...what? I'm just curious as to what you're meaning, there.
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="429607"]I advocate all couples, regardless of the genders of the couple, being treated equally before the law, weather the secular law gives them "marriages" or "civil unions". If anyone was or would be confused, hope that clears it up.[/quote]
Well, now I'm confused as to why you're discriminating against domestic partnerships not strictly involving couples, much less advocating (by omission) age discrimination and discrimination against interspecies partnerships.
[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="429607"]You might have a pretty system like "democracy" that gives you the illusion of making it fair, but what it all comes down to on a contended issue is that one group is going to force their views on another group.[/quote]
Among humans, that's about as "fair" a system as you're going to get in this inherently unfair life.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922
-
EvilPsychoJoe
- Redshirt
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:00 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: The Void of Ultimate Doom!
- Contact:
[quote="Deacon";p="429622"][quote="EvilPsychoJoe";p="429599"]If you don't want to live near them, don't move there.[/quote]
Heh...what? I'm just curious as to what you're meaning, there.[/quote]
I'm saying that you have the ability to choose not to move from your current situation into a new place if you don't like some of its inhabitants. This applies to ANY situation. It's kind of like the argument against needless censorship: "There IS a "power" or "channel" button. UTILIZE IT." You can choose not to engage that behavior.
Heh...what? I'm just curious as to what you're meaning, there.[/quote]
I'm saying that you have the ability to choose not to move from your current situation into a new place if you don't like some of its inhabitants. This applies to ANY situation. It's kind of like the argument against needless censorship: "There IS a "power" or "channel" button. UTILIZE IT." You can choose not to engage that behavior.
Welcome to the new year! The Year of the Joepocalypse! I am the be-all and end-all of everything!
C'mon, help out my ego here, okay?
C'mon, help out my ego here, okay?
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Well, I'm all for allowing more than two people into the union, but I'm trying not to clutter the issue.Well, now I'm confused as to why you're discriminating against domestic partnerships not strictly involving couples, much less advocating (by omission) age discrimination and discrimination against interspecies partnerships.
As for "age discrimination", and "interspecies" - a child can't legally consent, and neither can a dog. If there was another species with human intelligence capable of giving consent, I'd advocate that being added to the list of "ideas equal under the law", the same as if people of a younger age could also give consent to the union.
As for the bit about democracy, I don't know, I think my system is more "fair" than this "democracy", but that's just me and that's not this thread.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
Democracies aren't fair. Of course there not. The Majority of people are significantly less smart than the ruling elite, and they can only vote for the ruling elite.
They have which half of the elite controls them decided by PR, random chance, and who can scare / inspire the other side more. Which is slightly better than having the half of the elite chosen by wars.
They have which half of the elite controls them decided by PR, random chance, and who can scare / inspire the other side more. Which is slightly better than having the half of the elite chosen by wars.
I honestly can't understand how we can tell one group of people to marry, and tell the other group they're not allowed. It's the separate water fountains, bus seats, restaurants of the civil rights movement, only now it's in the bedroom.
Oppose gay marriage? Don't marry anyone of your sex.
Oppose gay marriage? Don't marry anyone of your sex.
nobody,not even the rain,has such small hands
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
I'd been meaning to ask, what sort of secular reasons do you have to oppose homosexuality that then also carry through to gay marriage?Judgemental, a while back, wrote:OK, I'm gonna have to get religious on you all. I have a number of secular reasons as to why I'm against homosexuality (and thus gay marriage), but those aren't my issue.
Last edited by StruckingFuggle on Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
I've no opinion on the matter but I will offer a definition which makes the word Marriage so distasteful to some people, who probably wouldn't mind if it was called "Civil Unions" - which would be very similar legally.
1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
People view it as being religious, and normally the term marriage implies Christian Religion. Which makes people of a religious nature a little queasy I feel.
1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners
People view it as being religious, and normally the term marriage implies Christian Religion. Which makes people of a religious nature a little queasy I feel.
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
Yeah, of course it makes them queasy ... but "it makes someone queasy" really isn't a good objection to something.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
I didn't say I objected. I say that I could see why they object.
Personally religion makes me Queasy, and I'd like to ban it*. But I respect that some people believe in a God, or lots of Gods, or a spirit or a belief system. And it makes them believe, do and say stupid things, but I respect their legal right as a majority to do that.
They're not trying to ban people from being Gay, they're not trying to stop them making out in Public, they just don't want them doing something called "Marriage" if they wanted something called something boring and legal, which to all intents and purposes was the same as marriage, I am sure it would help push it in their favour.
Is it fair gay people are treated like that? Probably not.
Is life fair? Hell no.
*Disclaimer:It might be very unorthodox, and personally I can see great things in God and Religion. And wish I believed in either. But I think it causes far more harm than good.
I know I can't ban it, and I know in reality banning it would create all sorts of political ethical problems. Would be immoral, and wouldn't be a solution. But I know drinking beer will make me put on weight, and damage my liver. Eradicate might be a better word for what I meant.
Personally religion makes me Queasy, and I'd like to ban it*. But I respect that some people believe in a God, or lots of Gods, or a spirit or a belief system. And it makes them believe, do and say stupid things, but I respect their legal right as a majority to do that.
They're not trying to ban people from being Gay, they're not trying to stop them making out in Public, they just don't want them doing something called "Marriage" if they wanted something called something boring and legal, which to all intents and purposes was the same as marriage, I am sure it would help push it in their favour.
Is it fair gay people are treated like that? Probably not.
Is life fair? Hell no.
*Disclaimer:It might be very unorthodox, and personally I can see great things in God and Religion. And wish I believed in either. But I think it causes far more harm than good.
I know I can't ban it, and I know in reality banning it would create all sorts of political ethical problems. Would be immoral, and wouldn't be a solution. But I know drinking beer will make me put on weight, and damage my liver. Eradicate might be a better word for what I meant.
Last edited by Mat3 on Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
StruckingFuggle
- Redshirt
- Posts: 22166
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 6:18 pm
- Gender: Male
- Location: Austin / San Marcos, Tx
So wait, are you saying the only reason you don't want to ban religion is because the majority wants to worship, not because it would be inherently wrong to deny them the right to follow their religion...?
I hope not, because that's frightening.
Also, "life isn't fair" is true, but that's no excuse to stand by and do nothing when you have the chance to make life less unfair.
I hope not, because that's frightening.
Also, "life isn't fair" is true, but that's no excuse to stand by and do nothing when you have the chance to make life less unfair.
"He who lives by the sword dies by my arrow."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
"In your histories, there are continual justifications for all manner of hellish actions. Claims of nobility and heritage and honor to cover up every bit of genocide, assassination, and massacre. At least the Horde is honest in their naked lust for power."
I do want to ban religion*. The reason it isn't banned is because the majority don't want it to be.
I'm not a libertarian. Religion causes violence, wars, hatred, and social divides. I can't see why anyones rights counteract hindering all of those
Which is why I have no power.
Disclaimer: It might be very unorthodox, and personally I can see great things in God and Religion. And wish I believed in either. But I think it causes far more harm than good.
I know I can't ban it, and I know in reality banning it would create all sorts of political ethical problems. Would be immoral, and wouldn't be a solution. But I know drinking beer will make me put on weight, and damage my liver. Eradicate might be a better word for what I meant.
I'm not a libertarian. Religion causes violence, wars, hatred, and social divides. I can't see why anyones rights counteract hindering all of those
Which is why I have no power.
Disclaimer: It might be very unorthodox, and personally I can see great things in God and Religion. And wish I believed in either. But I think it causes far more harm than good.
I know I can't ban it, and I know in reality banning it would create all sorts of political ethical problems. Would be immoral, and wouldn't be a solution. But I know drinking beer will make me put on weight, and damage my liver. Eradicate might be a better word for what I meant.
Last edited by Mat3 on Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
I suggest you rephrase this, or explain it very, very well, or brace yourself for a bit of an impact. I'm a fairly militant atheist who absolutely despises organised religion, especially monotheism or theism in general, but I'd never suggest for a moment that it would be a good or positive thing, a thing I'd like, to ban it. I'd love to eradicate it, but not ban it. It's a damned good thing you have no power... : \Personally religion makes me Queasy, and I'd like to ban it.
Well, actually apparently it's a great objection according to Leon Cass...Yeah, of course it makes them queasy ... but "it makes someone queasy" really isn't a good objection to something.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
I'm entitled to my opinion.
It might be very unorthodox, and personally I can see great things in God and Religion. And wish I believed in either. But I think it causes far more harm than good.
I know I can't ban it, and I know in reality banning it would create all sorts of political ethical problems. Would be immoral, and wouldn't be a solution. But I know drinking beer will make me put on weight, and damage my liver. Eradicate might be a better word for what I meant.
I will add that last paragraph as a disclaimer to my former posts.
It might be very unorthodox, and personally I can see great things in God and Religion. And wish I believed in either. But I think it causes far more harm than good.
I know I can't ban it, and I know in reality banning it would create all sorts of political ethical problems. Would be immoral, and wouldn't be a solution. But I know drinking beer will make me put on weight, and damage my liver. Eradicate might be a better word for what I meant.
I will add that last paragraph as a disclaimer to my former posts.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest