Well, I could just paste in what ElJeffe wrote, but that would be a waste of bandwidth.
Bottom line is, homosexuals can marry. They can marry someone of the same sex if they like. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they like. Society has deemed (currently and historically -- through government) there should be legal acknowlegement for opposite sex unions of a non-familial nature. No right is denied to them. There is no right to government acknowlegement of your permanent sexual relationship.
There is a right to equal consideration under the law regardless of — for example — sex. Why is my marriage recognized, while a woman's identical marriage, for no other reason than that she is a woman, is not?
Tell me ryuprecht, should we have put slavery "up for a vote" as to continue it or not, as it too was traditionally acceptable in parts of the world at the time?
I cannot imagine in any way how allowing gay marriage infringes on the rights of those who do not agree with it. They are not being forced to marry someone of their same sex. They aren't being told "YOUR WAY OF LIVE IS SICK AND WRONG." Absolutely fuck-all is being done to them.
Please see the previous posts on whether marriage is a basic human right. I don't think anybody has argued that slavery is in the same realm.
and every time you try this, I can't help but feel you're trying to obscure the core point of the argument.
The Banning of gay marriage is discrimination, plain and simple.
Perhaps I should ask you then what makes marriage a privilege if not a right? And why it is right that homosexuals not be allowed to partake in this privilege?
Well, I could just paste in what ElJeffe wrote, but that would be a waste of bandwidth.
Bottom line is, homosexuals can marry. They can marry someone of the same sex if they like. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they like. Society has deemed (currently and historically -- through government) there should be legal acknowlegement for opposite sex unions of a non-familial nature. No right is denied to them. There is no right to government acknowlegement of your permanent sexual relationship.
There is governmental recognition that marriage bonds two individuals as legally being family, which has an effect in terms of death and illness, etc.
Ah, but does that mean we are less free? The social morals against homosexuality are a choice made by the majority of people in the country. That they can make that choice, and unmake it when the tide turns still means they are free. I assume some population of the Dutch (likely small, I'll grant you), don't feel free that they have a government that supports what has traditionally not been an approved lifestyle in Western Society.
But I will admit that that is just an academic argument.
Aha, but then you have to ask yourself if the majority are actually looking out for their personal freedoms or simply protecting tradition. And if you're going to assume that some population of heterosexual Dutch feel limited just because homosexuals are allowed to marry, imagine the population of homosexual Americans who feel limited because they're not even afforded that right to begin with.
And is protecting traditions not a freedom allowed to the public?
There's probably some eventuality where homosexual marriage will come to pass in the US, but until a majority agree, you do greater harm to the freedom of those people who don't want it by forcing it upon them than you do by subjecting a few to what is essentially a formal document outlining the importance of a relationship that they already accept.
SO, slavery was okay when the majority of white folks wanted black people to be considered property, and not human beings (as upheld by the dread scott case)?
The fact of the matter is, those folks who don't want gay marriage are ENTIRELY unaffected by gay marriage. Should they really be able to claim that they are expressing their "freedom" by limiting the freedoms of others?
That's bullshit, and you know it.
My goodness. I just posted on the slavery topic a moment ago.
Yes, it does matter to others. It has no impact that one man has sex with another if they are consenting adults, but marriage as a construct HAS meaning. Society provides the framing of that meaning. It may vary between here and Timbuktu, it may be different for Muslims than Christians or Satanists, but it has meaning. Actions taken to deny society of that meaning HAS impact. I'm not saying it's a huge impact, but obviously there are a majority of people who believe it's large enough to vote no on gay marriage amendments.
many of these things can be accomplished through other legal means.
So, why should it be made more difficult for same sex couples to recieve these things? why not just do away with ALL governmental recognition of marriage, and forvce ALL couple to go about these things through other means?
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't?
Tax Benefits
* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Government Benefits
* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
All of these are based on the recognition of the legal system of the unique personal relationship between two people. That relationship objectively exists, as as such demands the recognition of the government, in the same way that free thought, speech and ownership exist. The philosophical basis for the recognition for this relationship is as valid as any other right, such as the rights of parents regarding children or children regarding their parents.
Indeed. And now if someone can show me how letting gay people do all the above stops straight people from doing the same, we can substantiate the claims that gay-marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.
Ah, but does that mean we are less free? The social morals against homosexuality are a choice made by the majority of people in the country. That they can make that choice, and unmake it when the tide turns still means they are free. I assume some population of the Dutch (likely small, I'll grant you), don't feel free that they have a government that supports what has traditionally not been an approved lifestyle in Western Society.
But I will admit that that is just an academic argument.
Aha, but then you have to ask yourself if the majority are actually looking out for their personal freedoms or simply protecting tradition. And if you're going to assume that some population of heterosexual Dutch feel limited just because homosexuals are allowed to marry, imagine the population of homosexual Americans who feel limited because they're not even afforded that right to begin with.
And is protecting traditions not a freedom allowed to the public?
There's probably some eventuality where homosexual marriage will come to pass in the US, but until a majority agree, you do greater harm to the freedom of those people who don't want it by forcing it upon them than you do by subjecting a few to what is essentially a formal document outlining the importance of a relationship that they already accept.
SO, slavery was okay when the majority of white folks wanted black people to be considered property, and not human beings (as upheld by the dread scott case)?
The fact of the matter is, those folks who don't want gay marriage are ENTIRELY unaffected by gay marriage. Should they really be able to claim that they are expressing their "freedom" by limiting the freedoms of others?
That's bullshit, and you know it.
My goodness. I just posted on the slavery topic a moment ago.
Yes, it does matter to others. It has no impact that one man has sex with another if they are consenting adults, but marriage as a construct HAS meaning. Society provides the framing of that meaning. It may vary between here and Timbuktu, it may be different for Muslims than Christians or Satanists, but it has meaning. Actions taken to deny society of that meaning HAS impact. I'm not saying it's a huge impact, but obviously there are a majority of people who believe it's large enough to vote no on gay marriage amendments.
I'm sorry, but no, that doesn't make sense.
saying that the way that people feel about themeaning of a word is more important than individual freedom is ABSOLUTE bullshit.
Honestly, it is NO different, in my mind, than the dread scott decision by the supreme court, wholy ignoring the rights of one group in the interests of another.
America is supposedto be about freedom, not just majority rule. You are supposed to PROTECT the minority.
I understand the argument that marriage tax-breaks and privileges aren't rights. However: there is a deep, deep problem with the government 'deciding' to offer privileges to people based on their sexuality. It's institutional bigotry and nothing else.
Drinking from a water fountain also isn't a right.
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't?
Tax Benefits
* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Government Benefits
* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
All of these are based on the recognition of the legal system of the unique personal relationship between two people. That relationship objectively exists, as as such demands the recognition of the government, in the same way that free thought, speech and ownership exist. The philosophical basis for the recognition for this relationship is as valid as any other right, such as the rights of parents regarding children or children regarding their parents.
Indeed. And now if someone can show me how letting gay people do all the above stops straight people from doing the same, we can substantiate the claims that gay-marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
I understand the argument that marriage tax-breaks and privileges aren't rights. However: there is a deep, deep problem with the government 'deciding' to offer privileges to people based on their sexuality. It's institutional bigotry and nothing else.
Drinking from a water fountain also isn't a right.
Saying gay folks can go about getting the same things in a different way sounds a bit too much like "seperate but equal" to me.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
Tell me ryuprecht, should we have put slavery "up for a vote" as to continue it or not, as it too was traditionally acceptable in parts of the world at the time?
I cannot imagine in any way how allowing gay marriage infringes on the rights of those who do not agree with it. They are not being forced to marry someone of their same sex. They aren't being told "YOUR WAY OF LIVE IS SICK AND WRONG." Absolutely fuck-all is being done to them.
Please see the previous posts on whether marriage is a basic human right. I don't think anybody has argued that slavery is in the same realm.
Actually, if you are unfamiliar with the case of Dread Scott, the Supreme Court of the United States of America once ruled that slaves were not human beings, but rather, they were property, and therefore had zero rights to freedom, and were to be treated simply as the belongings of their masters.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
I'd support banning government involvement with marriage at least.
Civil unions that conferred all the current benefits of marriage, which could be applied for by any two consenting adults, with all of the ceremonial bullshit handled solely by whoever wants to handle it (be it friends, family, a church, etc)
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
I'd support banning government involvement with marriage at least.
I was thinking more along the lines of defining it as an act of treason.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
I'd support banning government involvement with marriage at least.
Civil unions that conferred all the current benefits of marriage, which could be applied for by any two consenting adults, with all of the ceremonial bullshit handled solely by whoever wants to handle it (be it friends, family, a church, etc)
basically, this is THE answer to it all.
Problem is that it's based on thought, not emotion, so it'll never happen in this country, in the current political climate.
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't?
<snip>
I'm not sure if that was supposed to counter my point, or if you were just posting the information for public consumption.
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
I'd support banning government involvement with marriage at least.
I was thinking more along the lines of defining it as an act of treason.
Edit: Marriage, I mean.
No, I really think forcing every homophobic dude to pair off with another dude would do the world some good.
Seriously, though, we need to prevent gays from marrying, because then they'd start having kids, and eventually thegay population would overtake all of us straight folks...
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
You want to know what is frustrating?
When we would canvass to support gay marriage in Massachusetts people would refuse to sign because they didn't think marriage should be recognized by the government at all, or even exist.
Pretty much getting screwed by the libertarians and extreme feminists on that one.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
To be fair, a lot of talk gets bandied about about eliminating no-fault marriages and making it tougher to get a divorce, but these people are usually shouted down as supporting spousal abuse, and other such claptrap. Point being, it's not the case that nobody cares about the high divorce rate, and your argument is sort of a strawman, anyway. One can both oppose gay marriage and want to decrease divorces.
Jesus, guys, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Stop forcing me to properly clarify that anti-gay marriage argument.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't?
<snip>
I'm not sure if that was supposed to counter my point, or if you were just posting the information for public consumption.
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
Actually, you're kind of skipping a step.
basically, eljeffe is right, EXCEPT, seperate laws and rulings state that all citizens have theRIGHT to have all laws aply to them in thesame way.
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't?
<snip>
I'm not sure if that was supposed to counter my point, or if you were just posting the information for public consumption.
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
Actually, you're kind of skipping a step.
basically, eljeffe is right, EXCEPT, seperate laws and rulings state that all citizens have theRIGHT to have all laws aply to them in thesame way.
If everyone has a right, everyone has a right. Equality is inherent in the statement.
Is it possible this is an issue with how loosely defined "freedom" is?
One person may think this means it allows every citizen the right to fight for something they value that does not impose on the rights of another (The saying, your right to swing your fist stops just short of my nose) while another may view the term as anything that does not inhibit on what their definition of freedom is. They may feel that their moral or religious views are worth less when things such as gay marriage are allowed.
From my perspective, I don't see why allowing gay marriage is a bad thing. I suppose it's possible in the long run that others may look upon our society as a worse place because of it as a possible downside, but when others realize it's not going to create a nuclear winter to allow such a thing, I don't even see that as much of a possibility.
I mean, as a society we do want to move ahead with new ideas, thoughts, technologies etc to keep up or keep ahead of other societies or countries as expected of us right? I'm guessing keeping up with the times or new ideas etc involves more than having a longer lasting light bulb.
Yes, it does matter to others. It has no impact that one man has sex with another if they are consenting adults, but marriage as a construct HAS meaning. Society provides the framing of that meaning. It may vary between here and Timbuktu, it may be different for Muslims than Christians or Satanists, but it has meaning. Actions taken to deny society of that meaning HAS impact. I'm not saying it's a huge impact, but obviously there are a majority of people who believe it's large enough to vote no on gay marriage amendments.
So, a society's oppression and shaming of a fairly large portion of its own population--through the use of tenuous arguments such as "marriage is not a right," but what that tenuous argument is actually doing is keeping a lot of people from benefiting from the points on Shinto's list--is fine and dandy so long as said society has framed it thus? Cuz if that's the case, and I think that's what you're saying, I get a serious Thurmond vibe from that argument.
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the [bad word omitted FTW] race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
NexusSix on
REASON - Version 1.0B7 Gatling type 3 mm hypervelocity railgun system
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
You do know there's such a thing as "natural rights", yes? Like, if suddenly the constitution was amended to reinstitute slavery and eliminated the freedom of speech, one could call it a violation of rights without speaking complete gibberish?
When one talks about the right to free speech, this isn't quite the same thing as talking about the right to deduct state income tax paid when calculating federal income tax owed.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
To be fair, a lot of talk gets bandied about about eliminating no-fault marriages and making it tougher to get a divorce, but these people are usually shouted down as supporting spousal abuse, and other such claptrap. Point being, it's not the case that nobody cares about the high divorce rate, and your argument is sort of a strawman, anyway. One can both oppose gay marriage and want to decrease divorces.
Jesus, guys, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Stop forcing me to properly clarify that anti-gay marriage argument.
it may be a bit of a strawman, but I think it's a neccesary one
thefact of the matter truely is that Gay marriage is THEORIZED to be bad for the institution of marriage (with nothing to back thatup) whereas high divorce rates ARE NOTICABLY bad for the institution of marriage, but folks aren't talking about anti-divorce amendments, just anti-gay ones.
It's an important point to bemade, I feel, that it is more than just "the protection of the sanctity of marriage" going onhere, but rather, the anti-gay marriage movement is based in prejudice and bigotry, which are "values" that we should NOT be legislating from.
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't?
<snip>
I'm not sure if that was supposed to counter my point, or if you were just posting the information for public consumption.
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
Actually, you're kind of skipping a step.
basically, eljeffe is right, EXCEPT, seperate laws and rulings state that all citizens have theRIGHT to have all laws aply to them in thesame way.
If everyone has a right, everyone has a right. Equality is inherent in the statement.
I was thinking more along the lines of defining it as an act of treason.
Edit: Marriage, I mean.
That's a little dumb.
Just saying.
Depends what your objective is.
If your goal is to limit the government's role in legislating various crackpot ideas about morality and the like (say, banning of controlled substances, banning of ay marriages and civil unions, banning of sodomy), it's a little dumb.
If your goal is to put yourself on the same nutcase level as the people who want to ban gay marriage, sex, and pot, well done.
I was thinking more along the lines of defining it as an act of treason.
Edit: Marriage, I mean.
That's a little dumb.
Just saying.
Depends what your objective is.
If your goal is to limit the government's role in legislating various crackpot ideas about morality and the like (say, banning of controlled substances, banning of ay marriages and civil unions, banning of sodomy), it's a little dumb.
If your goal is to put yourself on the same nutcase level as the people who want to ban gay marriage, sex, and pot, well done.
Do you really think that making being married punishable by death would result in the government being able to legislate anything ever again?
Yes, it does matter to others. It has no impact that one man has sex with another if they are consenting adults, but marriage as a construct HAS meaning. Society provides the framing of that meaning. It may vary between here and Timbuktu, it may be different for Muslims than Christians or Satanists, but it has meaning. Actions taken to deny society of that meaning HAS impact. I'm not saying it's a huge impact, but obviously there are a majority of people who believe it's large enough to vote no on gay marriage amendments.
So, a society's oppression and shaming of a fairly large portion of its own population--through the use of tenuous arguments such as "marriage is not a right," but what that tenuous argument is actually doing is keeping a lot of people from benefiting from the points on Shinto's list--is fine and dandy so long as said society has framed it thus? Cuz if that's the case, and I think that's what you're saying, I get a serious Thurmond vibe from that argument.
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the [bad word omitted FTW] race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
I'm reminded of a Lewis Black bit where he criticises the folks who say that "the gays are ruining american values", talking about a band of gay who drive around suburban neighborhoods in a van, and then break into houses while good american families are having dinner, and start having wild butt sex right in the middle of the table.
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
You do know there's such a thing as "natural rights", yes? Like, if suddenly the constitution was amended to reinstitute slavery and eliminated the freedom of speech, one could call it a violation of rights without speaking complete gibberish?
When one talks about the right to free speech, this isn't quite the same thing as talking about the right to deduct state income tax paid when calculating federal income tax owed.
Talking about the right to deduct state income tax paid is exactly the same as talking about the contexts of solicitation, liable, publishing, donation of money to political causes etc. I.E. these the specific mechanisms in place through which the government recognizes an abstract right.
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
Just a little quote I think is relevant to the discussion.
I think gay folks should be able to marry, I think feminists and anti marriage folks should support them in trying to get the right to marriage. If feminists/libertarians want to hate on marriage itself they should just do it on an individual level and never get married while convincing others of their point of view. I hate using legislation to club other people over the head with your point of view.
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
Just a little quote I think is relevant to the discussion.
I think gay folks should be able to marry, I think feminists and anti marriage folks should support them in trying to get the right to marriage. If feminists/libertarians want to hate on marriage itself they should just do it on an individual level and never get married while convincing others of their point of view. I hate using legislation to club other people over the head with your point of view.
Since when do feminists hate marriage? I'm pretty sure they mostly hate abusive, man-owns-woman conventions ingrained in many cultural marriage traditions, not marriage. I hear they even like sex.
Edit: Come to think of it I've never met a feminist who didn't vocally support gay marriage.
Talking about the right to deduct state income tax paid is exactly the same as talking about the contexts of solicitation, liable, publishing, donation of money to political causes etc. I.E. these the specific mechanisms in place through which the government recognizes an abstract right.
To co-opt your vernacular, then, I think it's defensible to make a distinction between an abstract right and the mechanisms the government uses to recognize it. Freedom of speech qualifies as the former, and marriage qualifies as the latter. The difference is that it makes sense to discuss a violation of rights in the case where government doesn't recognize any freedom of speech, but not if the government doesn't recognize any marriages.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
You want to know what is frustrating?
When we would canvass to support gay marriage in Massachusetts people would refuse to sign because they didn't think marriage should be recognized by the government at all, or even exist.
Pretty much getting screwed by the libertarians and extreme feminists on that one.
Posts
There is a right to equal consideration under the law regardless of — for example — sex. Why is my marriage recognized, while a woman's identical marriage, for no other reason than that she is a woman, is not?
There is governmental recognition that marriage bonds two individuals as legally being family, which has an effect in terms of death and illness, etc.
My goodness. I just posted on the slavery topic a moment ago.
Yes, it does matter to others. It has no impact that one man has sex with another if they are consenting adults, but marriage as a construct HAS meaning. Society provides the framing of that meaning. It may vary between here and Timbuktu, it may be different for Muslims than Christians or Satanists, but it has meaning. Actions taken to deny society of that meaning HAS impact. I'm not saying it's a huge impact, but obviously there are a majority of people who believe it's large enough to vote no on gay marriage amendments.
So, why should it be made more difficult for same sex couples to recieve these things? why not just do away with ALL governmental recognition of marriage, and forvce ALL couple to go about these things through other means?
Indeed. And now if someone can show me how letting gay people do all the above stops straight people from doing the same, we can substantiate the claims that gay-marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage.
I'm sorry, but no, that doesn't make sense.
saying that the way that people feel about themeaning of a word is more important than individual freedom is ABSOLUTE bullshit.
Honestly, it is NO different, in my mind, than the dread scott decision by the supreme court, wholy ignoring the rights of one group in the interests of another.
America is supposedto be about freedom, not just majority rule. You are supposed to PROTECT the minority.
Drinking from a water fountain also isn't a right.
Not to mention that the increase in divorce rates is an ACTUAL threat on the "sanctity" of marriage, and yet no one is proposing an anti-divorce amendment.
Saying gay folks can go about getting the same things in a different way sounds a bit too much like "seperate but equal" to me.
Actually I support a constitutional amendment banning marriage.
Actually, if you are unfamiliar with the case of Dread Scott, the Supreme Court of the United States of America once ruled that slaves were not human beings, but rather, they were property, and therefore had zero rights to freedom, and were to be treated simply as the belongings of their masters.
I'd support banning government involvement with marriage at least.
Civil unions that conferred all the current benefits of marriage, which could be applied for by any two consenting adults, with all of the ceremonial bullshit handled solely by whoever wants to handle it (be it friends, family, a church, etc)
I'm more a fan of forced gay marriage, my self.
I was thinking more along the lines of defining it as an act of treason.
Edit: Marriage, I mean.
basically, this is THE answer to it all.
Problem is that it's based on thought, not emotion, so it'll never happen in this country, in the current political climate.
Your point was that marriage wasn't a right, it's just the way certain laws are applied to you.
It didn't even need countering. Legally, that is what a right is.
It's like me saying you don't have ownership rights to your car because your ownership is just a difference in the way the government deals with your ownership of the car.
No, I really think forcing every homophobic dude to pair off with another dude would do the world some good.
Seriously, though, we need to prevent gays from marrying, because then they'd start having kids, and eventually thegay population would overtake all of us straight folks...
<.<
>.>
You want to know what is frustrating?
When we would canvass to support gay marriage in Massachusetts people would refuse to sign because they didn't think marriage should be recognized by the government at all, or even exist.
Pretty much getting screwed by the libertarians and extreme feminists on that one.
So would purging by fire.
That's a little dumb.
Just saying.
To be fair, a lot of talk gets bandied about about eliminating no-fault marriages and making it tougher to get a divorce, but these people are usually shouted down as supporting spousal abuse, and other such claptrap. Point being, it's not the case that nobody cares about the high divorce rate, and your argument is sort of a strawman, anyway. One can both oppose gay marriage and want to decrease divorces.
Jesus, guys, I'm in favor of gay marriage. Stop forcing me to properly clarify that anti-gay marriage argument.
Actually, you're kind of skipping a step.
basically, eljeffe is right, EXCEPT, seperate laws and rulings state that all citizens have theRIGHT to have all laws aply to them in thesame way.
If everyone has a right, everyone has a right. Equality is inherent in the statement.
Depends what your objective is.
One person may think this means it allows every citizen the right to fight for something they value that does not impose on the rights of another (The saying, your right to swing your fist stops just short of my nose) while another may view the term as anything that does not inhibit on what their definition of freedom is. They may feel that their moral or religious views are worth less when things such as gay marriage are allowed.
From my perspective, I don't see why allowing gay marriage is a bad thing. I suppose it's possible in the long run that others may look upon our society as a worse place because of it as a possible downside, but when others realize it's not going to create a nuclear winter to allow such a thing, I don't even see that as much of a possibility.
I mean, as a society we do want to move ahead with new ideas, thoughts, technologies etc to keep up or keep ahead of other societies or countries as expected of us right? I'm guessing keeping up with the times or new ideas etc involves more than having a longer lasting light bulb.
So, a society's oppression and shaming of a fairly large portion of its own population--through the use of tenuous arguments such as "marriage is not a right," but what that tenuous argument is actually doing is keeping a lot of people from benefiting from the points on Shinto's list--is fine and dandy so long as said society has framed it thus? Cuz if that's the case, and I think that's what you're saying, I get a serious Thurmond vibe from that argument.
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the [bad word omitted FTW] race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
Ng Security Industries, Inc.
PRERELEASE VERSION-NOT FOR FIELD USE - DO NOT TEST IN A POPULATED AREA
-ULTIMA RATIO REGUM-
You do know there's such a thing as "natural rights", yes? Like, if suddenly the constitution was amended to reinstitute slavery and eliminated the freedom of speech, one could call it a violation of rights without speaking complete gibberish?
When one talks about the right to free speech, this isn't quite the same thing as talking about the right to deduct state income tax paid when calculating federal income tax owed.
it may be a bit of a strawman, but I think it's a neccesary one
thefact of the matter truely is that Gay marriage is THEORIZED to be bad for the institution of marriage (with nothing to back thatup) whereas high divorce rates ARE NOTICABLY bad for the institution of marriage, but folks aren't talking about anti-divorce amendments, just anti-gay ones.
It's an important point to bemade, I feel, that it is more than just "the protection of the sanctity of marriage" going onhere, but rather, the anti-gay marriage movement is based in prejudice and bigotry, which are "values" that we should NOT be legislating from.
Oh, I agree with you on the macro level, 100%
I was just adding the step you missed.
If your goal is to limit the government's role in legislating various crackpot ideas about morality and the like (say, banning of controlled substances, banning of ay marriages and civil unions, banning of sodomy), it's a little dumb.
If your goal is to put yourself on the same nutcase level as the people who want to ban gay marriage, sex, and pot, well done.
Do you really think that making being married punishable by death would result in the government being able to legislate anything ever again?
I'm reminded of a Lewis Black bit where he criticises the folks who say that "the gays are ruining american values", talking about a band of gay who drive around suburban neighborhoods in a van, and then break into houses while good american families are having dinner, and start having wild butt sex right in the middle of the table.
Talking about the right to deduct state income tax paid is exactly the same as talking about the contexts of solicitation, liable, publishing, donation of money to political causes etc. I.E. these the specific mechanisms in place through which the government recognizes an abstract right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Assuming congress actually has the backing of its constituents, yes. If it doesn't, I don't see what your point is.
Just a little quote I think is relevant to the discussion.
I think gay folks should be able to marry, I think feminists and anti marriage folks should support them in trying to get the right to marriage. If feminists/libertarians want to hate on marriage itself they should just do it on an individual level and never get married while convincing others of their point of view. I hate using legislation to club other people over the head with your point of view.
Clearly if my objective in "backing" such a move is to cause the government to fail, I'm not actually backing congress.
Since when do feminists hate marriage? I'm pretty sure they mostly hate abusive, man-owns-woman conventions ingrained in many cultural marriage traditions, not marriage. I hear they even like sex.
Edit: Come to think of it I've never met a feminist who didn't vocally support gay marriage.
To co-opt your vernacular, then, I think it's defensible to make a distinction between an abstract right and the mechanisms the government uses to recognize it. Freedom of speech qualifies as the former, and marriage qualifies as the latter. The difference is that it makes sense to discuss a violation of rights in the case where government doesn't recognize any freedom of speech, but not if the government doesn't recognize any marriages.
I was responding to this VC.