Cali on same-sex marriage

[fedaykin]

Bad_Karma, I myself doubt the usefulness of quotas, because things like university enrollment and getting a job should depend on merit. Still, I've not yet seen evidence that shows that this is a greater evil than altogether denying a whole group certain rights. Or that quotas are so widespread as to pose a serious problem.

A example would be schools offering tons of extra courses helping courses to female, but not one to male children. Especially when there's already some sort of equality reached.

I would love to see a concrete example of this. Which schools?

 

[Sander]

What i wanted to say with the fertile problem. There's also some different between fertige and infertile couples.
But it doesn't mean one is less worth the the other. And that advantages you can get as married couple because of a child should be bon to the child and not a marriage.

However, you tied the difference between gay and straight couples to their ability to have children.

Also, most rights a married couple gets have nothing to do whatsoever with children.

No! I mean going farther ahead. Not only granting marriage rights to homsexuals, but as said before, also to non-married long time relationships.
Because as far as i see it, at the moment there's a devlopment toward 'long-term' relationships without marriage.

Well, yes, but it's very tough to legally define longterm relationship.

 

[Thrawn]

You are right, I worded that pretty stupidly. I point I was trying to make is that you are not considered a bigot if you think incest is gross but you are if you think homosexuality is.

No, actually, you are considered a bigot if you think homosexuality is evil/inferior/should be banned. You can think it's gross all you want, I don't like seeing two men have sex any more than you do.

Wow. At what point did I say homosexuality should be banned? I am pretty sure I was talking about gay marriage, not homosexuality, being banned. In fact, I think I specificly said homosexauls should get all the same rights as hetrosexuals just that marriage should stay how it always has been.

What are the legal reasons for public nudity being illegal? What are the legal reasons American's can't cook and consume dog, cat or horse? What are the legal reasons a man can not consume or fornicate with his dead wife?

The first two are, in fact, rather silly and stupid laws (and I don't know whether it is illegal to cook and consume household animals in the US).

So those activities should be legal? Is that what you are saying?

The latter has to do with respect for the dead, and the belief that something remains of someone who has died.

And why exactly should people care about your Judeo-Christian definition of marriage and relinquish the right to get married under their own definition? You can define marriage however you want and that's fine. It is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same rights.

And why exactly should people care about your definition of remains and relinquish the right to fornicate with their spouse's corpse? You can define rigor-course however you want and that's fine. It is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same rights.
(command of the strike through would have made this a much cooler point)

Something considered immoral by a society is grounds enough for it to be illegal so long as it is illegal for everyone and once again this goes back to the idea that marriage as it stands in America today is equal for every person.

Oh, I forgot to comment on this before: this is simply not true. The law is supposed to be blind to the sexes. In fact, it is not. Only women can marry men, only men can marry women. The fact that you have the same rights as other *men* in marrying people is irrelevant, *everyone* should have the same rights.

See also universal suffrage.

So men should be able to enter women's bathrooms? Should it be blind of race too? Should a black person calling another black personn the n-word while beating him up be charged with a hate crime?

For that matter, by that logic, all hate crimes should be abolished.

Rofl. That is a pretty stupid statement. So if someone I knew attended Amadijad's university speech I would be fine to call them anti-semitic and it would be idiocy for them to expect anything else?

If the speech is anti-semitic then that's a pretty reasonable assumption, yes.
You expect people to attend a John McCain meeting to be Republicans, right?

You have really surprised me here. When the dean of students (or who ever it was) who organized Amadijad's appearence gave his introduction he refered to the man as "a cruel and petty dictator".

But appearently he is anti-semetic?

You returned here to read my posts, listen to what I had to say, you are CLEARLY anti-gay.

Guilty by association is bigotry or at least shows a large prejudice.

No it doesn't, it shows common sense. People showing up for such a lecture generally agree with what is discussed in the lecture. Until I'm presented with some counter-evidence, this is an entirely reasonable assumption.

This isn't bigotry at all, most importantly because bigotry is in fact a stubborn intolerance of a belief, creed or opinion. The fact that I think someone attending an anti-gay marriage rally is likely to be a bigot doesn't reflect on my tolerance or intolerance of that belief at all, it merely means that I think people who attend such a lecture are rather likely to be stubbornly intolerant of homosexuality or gay marriage. A rather logical conclusion, if you ask me.

Lets just say it isn't bigotry, it still is a massive prejudice. You are assuming things about people and judging them before you know them. This is the very thing you are fighting against.

You are wearing a 2 inch skirt in 45 degree weather, standing on the corner, smiling at everyone who drives by. Clearly you are a whore! I will never talk to you!

Well, MOST people who do that are whores...

 

[Mord_Sith]

Or Teeny boppers asking for trouble...

 

[Sander]

Wow. At what point did I say homosexuality should be banned?

Wow, at what point did I say you think that?

So those activities should be legal? Is that what you are saying?

I don't see why not.

And why exactly should people care about your definition of remains and relinquish the right to fornicate with their spouse's corpse? You can define rigor-course however you want and that's fine. It is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same rights.
(command of the strike through would have made this a much cooler point)

It's more a point of what people would like to be seen done to their own corpse.

So men should be able to enter women's bathrooms?

This is a pretty retarded point, considering the fact that this is a case of etiquette and private ownership.

Should it be blind of race too? Should a black person calling another black personn the n-word while beating him up be charged with a hate crime?

Yeah, that's a good example right there.
Stop with the retarded strawmen, please.

For that matter, by that logic, all hate crimes should be abolished.

Why not?

You have really surprised me here. When the dean of students (or who ever it was) who organized Amadijad's appearence gave his introduction he refered to the man as "a cruel and petty dictator".

But appearently he is anti-semetic?

And another straw man, you're doing well here.
Again: you'd expect someone attending a meeting which is anti-semitic to be anti-semite *until shown otherwise*.

Lets just say it isn't bigotry, it still is a massive prejudice. You are assuming things about people and judging them before you know them. This is the very thing you are fighting against.

No, it isn't prejudice because I'm simply judging them by their actions, not their nature.

You are wearing a 2 inch skirt in 45 degree weather, standing on the corner, smiling at everyone who drives by. Clearly you are a whore! I will never talk to you!

Well, MOST people who do that are whores...

And here's strike one for being a troll.

 

[fedaykin]

And why exactly should people care about your Judeo-Christian definition of marriage and relinquish the right to get married under their own definition? You can define marriage however you want and that's fine. It is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same rights.

And why exactly should people care about your definition of remains and relinquish the right to fornicate with their spouse's corpse? You can define rigor-course however you want and that's fine. It is irrelevant to the fact that they should have the same rights.
(command of the strike through would have made this a much cooler point)

Frankly, there's really not much to say here except:

You made the connection between gay marriage and necrophilia. I did not not do so in any of my posts. In fact, they are different, because the definition of human remains, in other words corpses, is objective rather than subjective like the institution of marriage. In one case you have remains of a dead human being whose wishes we do not know, in the other two living people who consent to marriage. It's quite a leap of logic you are making here. In any case, as has already been stated in this thread, allowing gay marriage does not necessitate, nor even imply, that anything else should be allowed. It is an independent issue.

But this is of course not just a straw man. You simultaneously used the slippery slope argument by implying that legalized marriage leads to legalized necrophilia etc. However, if that were true, why have countries with legalized gay marriage not legalized incest, necrophilia and such? Why are there no vocal groups advocating these practices? And why are only gays prohibited from marrying, but not convicted pedophiles and wife-beaters, who could actually cause someone harm by getting married? You are trying to induce fear where fear is unfounded by taking the argument to absurdity.

By the way, Thrawn, are you a religious man?

 

[Snackpack]

To thrawn:

According to your posts you say you support equal rights for homosexuals, and your problem is having to "redefine" the word marriage.

What possible vested interest do you have in defending the archaic definition of a word?

If tomorrow someone finally invents the hoverboard will you rally against using the word 'vehicle' to describe it?

 

[Thrawn]

So those activities should be legal? Is that what you are saying?

I don't see why not.

And here is my point, really what this whole tread has been leading up to.

If morals or a personal opinion of right and wrong aren't enough to make marriage between a man and a man illegal, morals aren't enough to make anything illegal including public decency or respect for the deceased.

Should it be blind of race too? Should a black person calling another black personn the n-word while beating him up be charged with a hate crime?

Yeah, that's a good example right there.
Stop with the retarded strawmen, please.

Hey you brought up universal suffrage, which doesn't relate at all to homosexual marriage.

My point was if laws (who you can marry in this case) have to be blind to sex, they have to also be blind to race, but they are not. Does this relate enough for you?

You have really surprised me here. When the dean of students (or who ever it was) who organized Amadijad's appearence gave his introduction he refered to the man as "a cruel and petty dictator".

But appearently he is anti-semetic?

And another straw man, you're doing well here.
Again: you'd expect someone attending a meeting which is anti-semitic to be anti-semite *until shown otherwise*.

Lets just say it isn't bigotry, it still is a massive prejudice. You are assuming things about people and judging them before you know them. This is the very thing you are fighting against.

No, it isn't prejudice because I'm simply judging them by their actions, not their nature.

You are wearing a 2 inch skirt in 45 degree weather, standing on the corner, smiling at everyone who drives by. Clearly you are a whore! I will never talk to you!

Well, MOST people who do that are whores...

And here's strike one for being a troll.

So pointing out the insanity of snap judging someone by their actions is trolling more so than saying something like...

*ignorance*

What is the difference between a man marring a man and a man marrying his sister? Or his mother? Or to the more extremes, his dog or a child? Why is it okay to be disgusted by incest but you shouldn't be disgusted by homosexuality?

You are a gigantic retard, hope this helps.

says who? your fucking bible? jesus man, this is the 21st century. people like you scare me more than any terrorist ever possibly could.

Tolerance. Until you disagree.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

what does it even matter to you at this point? you've basically made a fool out of yourself and i'd wager at least 95% of this community that has read your posts views you as an unpleasant, back-tracking, ignorant fool who spent most of his time stepping on his own feet trying to find his way out of an argument about something whose basic nature eludes him (most likely helped by a blind devotion to the particular brand of upbringing you've had).

just leave it.

you can't possibly want to continue this forever and you're certainly not making any friends.

 

[Ashmo]

The entire concept of a hate crime is pretty American anyway. A hate crime is a normal crime, except the MOTIVE is different.

So, yes, a black person can commit a racially motivated crime against his own race. Just as a homosexual can hate homosexuals (several Christian conservatives came out of the closet despite considering homosexuality an abomination before their deity of choice).

The reason the US has "hate crimes" is one of reverse discrimination, just like "equal opportunities" and such. It's to counter-balance the existing discrimination to a point where both cancel each other out and the laws can be faded out.

So, yes, it does relate to egalitarianism, but not how you thought. Hate crimes, equal opportunities and such are there to benefit those discriminated against by society at large. Universal suffrage, the ban on racial segregation and any-sex marriage are there because they remove instances of systemic discrimination.

The two kinds of law go hand-in-hand. One balances social discrimination, the other removes systemic discrimination.

Your strawman just went up in flames.

 

[Tagaziel]

Someone reads his posts?

 

[Sander]

And here is my point, really what this whole tread has been leading up to.

If morals or a personal opinion of right and wrong aren't enough to make marriage between a man and a man illegal, morals aren't enough to make anything illegal including public decency or respect for the deceased.

Wrong.
Because in the case of marriage there is a clear discriminatory element - not all people have the same rights. Women cannot marry women while men can. Hence, inequality.
This has jack shit to do with what one finds 'decent' but everything to do with one of the basic tenets of Western societies: equality of all people before the law.

Hey you brought up universal suffrage, which doesn't relate at all to homosexual marriage.

I brought it up as an example of equality between men and women.
To expand on that, all men had the same voting rights, but this didn't make it an equal rights considering the fact that woman didn't have those same rights.

My point was if laws (who you can marry in this case) have to be blind to sex, they have to also be blind to race, but they are not. Does this relate enough for you?

Most constitutions in the world have a clause that prevents the law from being different for men of different races, yes.
As I've already pointed out, the fact that hate crimes and whether or not that is a good thing (I'd argue it isn't) is rather irrelevant for gay marriage.

Also, see Ashmo's excellent post.

So pointing out the insanity of snap judging someone by their actions is trolling more so than saying something like...

Since when is it insane to judge someone by their actions?
What is this, ass-backwards world?

 

[Buxbaum666]

Someone reads his posts?

Whose posts?

 

[ford_prefect]

In Spain, gay marriage is legal since it's 4 years now, and it seems the world is still spinning round.

Here, the catholic lobby opposed it strongly, but eventually it came to be just a matter of terms. The conservatives doesn't even oppose the civil union of homosexuals, they refuse the use of the word 'marriage' for it.

What happens is that they mix the marriage-civil institution with the marriage-sacrament. I find the discussion quite pointless, as long as everybody gets the same rights, they can call it marriage or wanamingo, who cares?

 

[Moving Target]

In Spain, gay marriage is legal since it's 4 years now, and it seems the world is still spinning round.

....Spain.

The U.S. got scooped by Spain.

The country that gave us the Inquisition, Barbarossa and the mission culture.

Spain.

.... 'Kay, sort of a crappy joke there. Sorry if I offended anyone, just trying to make the point that the U.S. is always behind the 8-ball on this sort of stuff. The U.S. was pretty much the last industrialized nation (maybe *the* last?) to make slavery illegal and give non-white men and ANY women the vote.

Here, the catholic lobby opposed it strongly, but eventually it came to be just a matter of terms. The conservatives doesn't even oppose the civil union of homosexuals, they refuse the use of the word 'marriage' for it.

Here's an interesting point: a bit earlier, some people were talking about the Governator (Schwartzenegger, for those not familiar with the term) not swatting down the same-sex union law, despite being a Republican. He's ALWAYS been for same-sex unions; been on record for years about it, essentially taking a similar stance to this.... Giving same-sex couples exactly the same rights, but just not calling it marriage.

He's a damn good governor- though I don't care much for his pro-big-business views (THAT'S where he's very Republican) but... well, let's put it this way- he's not Gray Davis.

What happens is that they mix the marriage-civil institution with the marriage-sacrament. I find the discussion quite pointless, as long as everybody gets the same rights, they can call it marriage or wanamingo, who cares?

And it's even more pointless when you consider that *all* marriages in the U.S. are civil unions. The churches/synagogues/temples/whatever have NO say in how marriages are run in this country.... separation of church and state, and all that.

Though of course, because some of the wingnuttiest and richest churches in the country have the ear of folks in government, it's easier to present it like it's a faith-based issue, rather than a civil rights issue.

And it doesn't hurt to have a big-ass culture full of people who choose to use the 'moved goal-posts' definition of marriage (as being a monogamous union between a man and a woman) which had more to do with twisting the knife in the Mormons' backs than anything else.

 

[Ylenard]

Please, read through the whole post before replying. My english isn't good enough to let me express my thoughts clearly, and I make 4 points which you have to sum up to get my opinion on the subject.

Point 1)
Let's say I'm not married and I don't wan't to be married since I like neither men nor women. I have the right to do so. Then there is a couple living next door that is married. They have the right to do so. Since I pay taxes it is me who is paying for their privileges. Does this really mean my rights are equall to theirs? You could say I have the right to marry someone and thus they are equall - I agree, but we have to notice one thing - my position is inferrior to theirs. Why is that? Because institution of marriege was made to encourage long term men-women relationships since such couples make children and improve chances of those children getting risen in good conditions. This was benefitial to the whole society (even the homosexual part) because it was the children that kept the society going. Now what would be the reason to give those benefits to homosexual couples? There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me(and whole heterosexual part of society) to pay for homosexual couple's privileges. When we pay for heterosexual marriage privileges it's not an actual pay - statistically it can be said that it's a loan (statistically because some of the couples are infertile) - it will be their children that will pay for my retirement in the future.


Point 2)
The whole thing get's complicated when you factor adoptions in. I don't have enough data to analyse it though. I don't see any reason to grant homosexual couples right to marriege unless right to adoption came along with it. It's either one way or the other. The same actually goes for infertile heterosexual couples. I don't know how many children statistically get adopted by infertile couples, homosexual couples, fertile couples, singles, but it probably could be worked out whether giving them privileges would be beneficial to the society, or not.

Point 3)
Then there is the point of keeping the society healthy, and providing good conditions for children, and as we know, having sex left and right with multiple partners increases the chances of getting pregnant(and being left alone with the child), and getting infected with various sexual disieses. Giving benefits to marriages(both heterosexual and homosexual) promotes long term relationships thus lowering chances of those things occuring.

Point 4)
Since we're not discussing whether homosexualism is bad/evil/etc, but rather giving them the same financial privileges that we give to heterosexual couples all moral-based arguments like "they should have the same right as heterosexuals" are missed in my oppinion. They have the right to be together, and we're talking about giving them privileges compared to the "single" part of society. Since we're talking about giving them financial privilages and not "basic human rights" we need financial/social arguments to do that. The only place where moral based arguments belong to is a discussion about church homosexual marriages, and I'm not going to discuss that...

 

[Sander]

Please, read through the whole post before replying. My english isn't good enough to let me express my thoughts clearly, and I make 4 points which you have to sum up to get my opinion on the subject.

Please read through the entire thread before replying next time, thank you.

You're suggesting that marriage is solely for children. It isn't. Tons of fertile couples choose not to have children, tons of infertile couples get married.
Hence your entire argument is useless. People don't get privileges just for the kids, they get privileges as a couple *full stop*.

Whether or not marriage was originally about children is irrelevant, by the way, as laws should reflect the current society.

Your last point is about the merits of marriage itself, which is an entirely different subject.

 

[Ylenard]

Sander wrote:

Please read through the entire thread before replying next time, thank you.

I read it.

Sander wrote:

You're suggesting that marriage is solely for children. It isn't. Tons of fertile couples choose not to have children, tons of infertile couples get married.
Hence your entire argument is useless. People don't get privileges just for the kids, they get privileges as a couple *full stop*.

I never said they get it only for children hence my point number 3. They get it mainly for children though. If you belive that marrieges don't get their previleges for kids then name the social functions of the marriage in which you belive.

You have to remember that we're talking about statistics here. If statistically 75% of married couples have children,while only 25% of unmarried havethem, then granting marragies previliges will result in more children.


Sander wrote:

Whether or not marriage was originally about children is irrelevant, by the way, as laws should reflect the current society.

It is still relevant. That one function remains.

Sander wrote:

Your last point is about the merits of marriage itself, which is an entirely different subject.

Nope. It's about moral arguments being irrelevant to a consideration of homosexual marriages.

 

[fedaykin]

Ylenard: Except, you fail to realize that marriage is not just about making children. It's not some kind of baby machine that must function well to be profitable to society. It is also obvious that not all couples have children or want to have them. In some countries (like Estonia) sociologists have noted the reluctance of young couples to have a child.

I think the reason you are hammering the point about the institution of marriage being there for making children is that that's the only thing that differentiates gay couples from heteros. They can't biologically have children. It is thus very convenient to argue that rights are irrelevant and that the only thing that counts is whether the couple can have children. You are ignoring that the ability to have children is not a pre-requisite for marriage. The financial benefits married couples get are not only connected to children. Take a look at this list: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/...6EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/ (remember to click the next button, it has three pages). As you can see, very few of these have anything to do with children. This raises doubts about the validity of your argument about marriage being mostly about procreation.

It is also interesting that you (quite rightly) bring out the issue of infertile couples. Because if you say gay marriage should not be allowed simply on the grounds that they can't have children you must also say that infertile couples should be denied this right for the same reason. The whole "marriage is for making children" argument is, of course, made pointless by the fact that adoption is possible and frequently practiced.

 

[Sander]

I never said they get it only for children hence my point number 3. They get it mainly for children though. If you belive that marrieges don't get their previleges for kids then name the social functions of the marriage in which you belive.

Here's your fallacy. You believe there has to be a social function for the benefits to exist. This is false.

Also, there are social functions for marriages including mutual support, getting children out of their parents homes etc.

It is still relevant. That one function remains.

Why would an outdated principle be relevant? It isn't. The fact that people still have children in marriage doesn't mean it's the only reason marriage exists in modern society.