Real World Event Discussions

Federal gay marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, July 19, 2010 21:02
VIEWED: 5559
PAGE 5 of 7

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:43 PM

"Why not just streamline the process, and call marriage a civil and/or religious contract between two consenting adults"

Hello,

This new definition is already a problem, and infringes on the choices of the individual.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:56 PM

I'm on the fence with this topic. I can emphasize with religious marriage types not wanting to be lumped with people they staunchly disagree. On the other hand I can see why homosexuals feel second class and unfairly treated.

I see marriage as historically being defined as one man and one woman. This has always come with an economic advantage(and I understand why-make babies raise family, etc) that I like to think all people would want to take advantage of.

What I don't understand is why can't homosexual unions be called something other than marriage? If so many heterosexual couples are this offended why would homosexuals insist on "shoving" it in their faces? As long as the benefits of union are the same, that is. I see it as divisive to our country and unnecessary. I tend to think the civil union idea is overwhelmingly popular in this country and should be the chosen option. Sure their are millions who feel homosexual unions are wrong also, but they are a small minority.

MALACHITE

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Yes; it will no doubt be a total mess and raise hell, but it would be nice if it worked.

I'm amazed that the right is always screaming about too much government intervention, but they have no problem when it keeps gays from marrying or a woman getting an abortion.

Hypocrisy, thy name is RWA.

Well, I guess I'd start by saying we're probably all hypocrites to some degree or other...

Someone may have already addressed this. I'm not speaking from any expertise here, just opinion, but I don't think the RWA is opposed to all laws. Clearly, in cases they feel that a citizen's constitutional rights aren't upheld, they want further laws to provide clarification/protection. Gays getting married and women getting abortions are two very different issues. On the one hand, I don't see any harm to anyone with gays getting married, on the other hand, I can certainly see how some might see abortion as murder and feel that the rights of a fetus/baby need some kind of protection.

I don't want to derail the conversation. My main point is that the two issues are different and that I don't think the RWA is opposed to all law (unless RWA stands for something else, like, "Real world anarchists").

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...Why not?

A marriage isn't a business partnership.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NIKI2

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:42 PM

Kirk:

Quote:
If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits.

No, because many do, and nobody pays any attention. Jim and I were already a couple, already living together, and we DID get officially "married" for insurance purposes. The law determines under what conditions one can be covered or get tax breaks; why shouldn't homosexual couples have equal benefits? That has nothing to do with EXCLUDING heterosexuals, only with INCLUDING homosexuals and giving them the same rights as hetero couples.

Dmaan, perfectly expressed, and what it's all about in the end.

Question:

Quote:
What I don't understand is why can't homosexual unions be called something other than marriage? If so many heterosexual couples are this offended why would homosexuals insist on "shoving" it in their faces? As long as the benefits of union are the same, that is. I see it as divisive to our country and unnecessary.

As to your first question, why SHOULDN’T they be? As to your statement about “shoving”, I don’t see any shoving in anyone’s face. There is a desire for EQUALITY, nothing more. People who don’t like the concept are the ones who FEEL it’s being shoved in their faces, but the fact is it’s a private matter and there’s no shoving, unless you consider two people romantically involved who want to have their ties recognized by society as “shoving”.

In which case, how about interracial marriage, which was also illegal at one time? Isn’t legalizing interracial marriage “shoving” it in the face of racists who are uncomfortable with the concept? Should we do away with those, too, to avoid discomfiting some portions of society? I guess it’s equally divisive to our society, but somehow we’ve managed to survive it.

RWA stands for Right Wing Authoritarians—it comes from a book which attempted to understand a type of mentality. It does not mean ALL right wingers or all right-anything, just people like Wulf whose minds are made up and are unable to see past their prejudices, simply put. Nobody that I’m aware of said RWAs are against ALL laws; the question was why they, who express continuously that they’re against government intruding on our personal lives, are nonetheless in favor of (and MADE) laws intruding on people’s private lives. The two things mentioned are both instances of government intrusion in what should be a personal decision; therein lies the hypocrisy.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

CITIZEN

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I haven't heard anything that makes marriage something special or unique or different. You may reject my notion, but I haven't seen why my notion is reject-able other than that it offends some kind of sensibility.

Much like I see nothing from you that supports your stance, nor that makes your notion anything more than reject-able.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we remove the notion of social engineering, the financial problems of a marriage are completely handled by financial laws that exist outside the purview of marriage.

So you say, but you've not even begun to support that claim and the burden of evidence is on your side.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If you want something sentimental, you are free to supplement your arrangement with a religious or non-religious ceremony of your choosing. The government and the law should take no interest in your sentiments.

I've been talking about legal frameworks, not sentimentality.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
You are not comprehending my words. Government is either punishing those who fail to get married or rewarding those who do (depending on your point of view.) I have never suggested marriage was a punishment.

I understand your words perfectly. You're claiming that marriage is used as a bludgeon to force people to get married, and that that is all it's for. You're wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I have already explained what I think the citizenship law should be (this was somehow overlooked. Yes, I did advocate change.)

It wasn't overlooked, you just didn't say it. It was "overlooked" when I said it though.

So Anyway, you favor no border controls then?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

But why you think someone should need to be a citizen anyway to be with their loved ones is beyond me.

Perhaps because one of us doesn't understand citizenship? You can't remain resident in a country in which you don't have leave to remain.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The decision to be a citizen should be independent of the decision to marry.

Nonsense. Of course who you're going to spend you life with is going to be a factor in whether you decide to gain citizenship of a country.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It should be possible to marry and also to choose not to be a citizen.

And how do you propose to do that with a world filled with sovereign nation states, precisely?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
You keep trying to suggest that if you're not a citizen, you can't be here. I'm not sure where you get that notion. There are lots of foreign citizens in this country at all times, without being married to citizens.

And you keep trying to pass off things that are entirely unalike as the same. Where you could get the notion that a permanent resident is the same thing as a tourist or someone on a temporary work visa is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

You keep using fanciful hyperbole like blowing up a house to kill ants and throwing babies out with bathwater. But I haven't heard any reason why marriage is needed as a government institution.

While you keep using flowery philosophical arguments entirely divorced from reality and deeply intellectually dishonest arguments trying to play off tourists as the same thing as a citizen. Then you try and dismiss what I've said by claiming well known English sayings (like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater") is "fanciful hyperbole".

You've yet to back up word one of your statements, and since you're the one making the claims, I'm just the one rejecting your claims, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Instead you wave your hands around and demand other people prove you wrong, rather than you prove yourself right.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwar

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:55 PM

Quote:
A marriage isn't a business partnership.

Yeah, I heard you saying this the first time.

I'm not asking you for burden of proof that marriages work one way or the other, I'm asking you your opinion on what defines a marriage.

I think Anthony was asking for something similar, when you went and demanded burden of proof.

What defines a marriage/civil union/domestic partnership for me is that functionally it's an agreement between two people to pool their resources, with the intention that doing so may better their future quality of life and financial prospects.

You disagree. But the conversation can't go any further unless you describe what you think defines marriage, because Anthony and I don't understand where you're coming from.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 4:59 PM

Quote:
Where you could get the notion that a permanent resident is the same thing as a tourist or someone on a temporary work visa is beyond me.

A permanent resident is also not necessarily a citizen. In America, someone has to live here seven years before they can APPLY for citizenship. Meaning that after seven years they might not apply, yet still remain here, legally, on a visa or whatever other means they have. Maybe it works different in Britain, I don't know.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:09 PM

Hello Citizen,

You seem to think I have some kind of burden of proof.

Marriage laws restrict and reward the citizenry, based on the type and number of adults they form documented romantic commitments with. Does this need to be proven?

There are laws that exist to determine child support responsibilities. These exist independent of marriage. Does this need to be proven?

There are laws that exist to decide joint ownership of property, investments, etc. People can even set up business partnerships and corporations as they desire, in order to share ownership of and responsibility towards property. These laws exist independent of marriage. Does this need to be proven?

People can visit and reside in my country independent of citizenship, and without reliance on citizenship. This residency can be long-term, and even span a lifetime. Does this need to be proven?

Which of my assertions carry the burden of proof you claim? Which do you disagree with and need proof of? What, exactly, are you contending is false?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

KPO

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
If two homosexuals can get "Married" then we might as well throw out the whole concept of government endorsed Marriage because it becomes meaningless. If any two males or females can get "Married", wouldn't it be discrimination to prevent heterosexuals from entering into "Marriage" just to get insurance and tax benefits. Just because a pair of married male heteros chooses to not have sex together, but instead continue to bang hot chicks on the side are they some how less worthy than a Homo couple.

What's to stop heterosexuals doing this currently? A heterosexual male and heterosexual female can get married purely for insurance and tax benefits. Whether or not we throw out government endorsed marriage has nothing to do with whether homosexuals are allowed to enter into it, it seems to me.

It's not personal. It's just war.