pseudo essay reguarding same-sex marriage (Geared toward more secular right wingers)

[Tiassa]

Wouldn't your biological parents give you a religious education anyways. Wouldn't your adopted parents give you a religious education anyways?

Let's get extreme for a minute. Let's say that one day I take up a crack habit. I start smacking my partner around and people are worried that my daughter has too many bruises for the natural rough and tumble of childhood. An investigation comes 'round and shows my daughter has been exposed to cocaine, has been beaten, and has hurt herself at least once because I wasn't supervising her as she climbed in a dangerous place while I was freebasing. Let's imagine that, as with many children who enter the foster system (that's where the largest number of children awaiting adoption are), my daughter has been sexually abused by someone (perhaps me).

No, I'm not going to stop smoking crack, I say. No, I'm not going to refashion my life around this little hellion. And so she's taken away. On the merits of my parenthood I should have a say?

Certainly, I should be able to oppose her adoption if I'm clean and working and stabilized again, but because I don't like some superficial label about her potential family? That's absurd.

It would have to be on a preference base. Many of the adopting parents are put on large waiting lists. It makes sense for the biological parents to have some say in who cares for their child.

Under what circumstances? If I have failed to establish a route of guardianship in my incapacitation, then I have failed to establish a route of guardianship.

The definition doesn't.

Yes, it does. It specifies gender restrictions on marriage in response to a prior lack thereof.

Changing the US constitution and being against gay marriage are two different issues.

Generally speaking, yes. But when the Constitutional amendment in consideration is a gender-based restriction on marriage, they become intertwined.

After this, you mentioned discrimination, I think. It doesn't work. Discrimination can only be applied here to what the individual can do, not what the group can do.

I reiterate a post from last July: "Gay Marriage - The Next Hurdle":

New challenges face newly-married homosexual couples. In Connecticut, agent Katy Gossman was informed that her new wife, Kristin, would not be allowed healthcare under the Bureau's employee benefits. Over in Massachusetts, Donald Henneberger, neé Smith, has been denied a change of name on his passport by the National Passport Center. The letter, addressed to "Mr. Henneberger," read, "We are unable to comply with your request for a name change based on the documentation you sent because of the Defense of Marriage Act" ....

.... Very simply:

• In both cases the rights of a legal contract are withheld as the legal contract (e.g. marriage) is declared null and void on the basis of gender.
• In the case of the Gossmans, it will be difficult for the FBI to argue any other case; quite simply, the reason Kristin Gossman is denied healthcare is because she is the wrong gender.
• In the case of the Hennebergers, the same issue is at stake. Donald is the wrong gender for the NPC to cope with. Having specifically cited DoMA, the NPC's exposure comes specifically in citing a law designed to deny due process and equal protection on the basis of a person's gender.​

In the months since, nobody has taken direct issue with those assertions, but like you, many have made the general declaration that it's not about gender, that groups don't have rights per se, &c. It would be helpful to my understanding of the homophobe traditionalists if they were capable or decent enough to answer the issue in more specific terms. There are individual cases on the record in the ongoing discussion of gay marriage, and these go ignored in favor of more general rhetoric that gives the appearance of ducking particulars.

The fact of the matter is that neither I nor a gay person can marry an individual of the same sex but we both can marry and individual of the opposite sex. These rights are expressed in terms of the individual not the group. Of course, the group can have rights; but even then, they're usually viewing the group as one entity, right?

So rape is the standard? Trade rights for unwanted sexual contact?

Sounds like coercion to me. Welcome to the rape culture, Okinrus.

Or had you not thought about that?

Tradition explains why this contract is called "marriage".

What tradition?

I mean, why don't we just go back to forced marriages, since you're an advocate of the rape culture? How about we return to the days of anti-miscegenation, since the court bucked tradition by allowing blacks and whites to marry?

It doesn't explain why the goverment allows the contract.

Doesn't need to. It's self-evident.

We can presume they do because they think it's beneficial to society. Otherwise, they would have neither marriage nor gay marriage.

Marriage is actually, traditionally, an ownership issue. Much like blue laws in the United States, laws languish unenforced until some circumstance calls them into question. In Tacoma, Washington, for instance, it was illegal into the 1980s at least to serve spirits to a native American. I don't recall that anyone was arrested or charged on that count, but since my brother, also adopted, is a native American, that one struck close to me. In the 1990s, I remember reading a news article in which a British court finally and officially struck down the provisions that made a wife the legal property of her husband. Whether or not the law had been enforced in the recent years before that is beyond me.

The tradition of marriage itself is proprietary. It's only the last century or so that the definition has changed, and we can largely thank "feminazis" (as their critics call them) for the changes.

Hence gays must show gay marriage is beneficial, and that it's more beneficial than civil unions.

And where in the history of philosophy, state, society, or the judiciary do you find support for that assertion?

 

[okinrus]

No, I'm not going to stop smoking crack, I say. No, I'm not going to refashion my life around this little hellion. And so she's taken away. On the merits of my parenthood I should have a say?

When the state authorities have taken custody, a parent's control over his or her child has been taken away and given to the state.

Under what circumstances? If I have failed to establish a route of guardianship in my incapacitation, then I have failed to establish a route of guardianship.

Well, if the state has taken control over the child, then the parent's say is basically nil. The state still can of course still respect the parent's preferences, and I still don't see why they should be taken away. It's not like the preferences will harm the child any. In fact, it would just be one tool of many to screen possible parents. And it's not like the drug addicts have no rights. Why should the state harm drug addicts more than they are already?

Yes, it does. It specifies gender restrictions on marriage in response to a prior lack thereof.

But which party is being descriminated against? Men can marry women and women can marry men. It's equal to me. The only case where it's not equal is with a hermaphrodite.

So rape is the standard? Trade rights for unwanted sexual contact?

Rape is without consent.

What tradition?
I mean, why don't we just go back to forced marriages, since you're an advocate of the rape culture? How about we return to the days of anti-miscegenation, since the court bucked tradition by allowing blacks and whites to marry?

I'm only appealing to tradition to explain why marriage is called "marriage". But if you want an actual specific tradition, then it's each individuals tradition, either religious or secular, that explains their terminology. But since ancient times, marriage was understood to be between a man and a women, and it's the most standard definition.

And where in the history of philosophy, state, society, or the judiciary do you find support for that assertion?

As I mentioned before, not allowing gay marriage isn't discrimination. Therefore, the only other possible reason to allow gay marriage is if it's shown to be beneficial in someway.

 

[Tiassa]

When the state authorities have taken custody, a parent's control over his or her child has been taken away and given to the state.

Exactly. And I see the next point in the order:

Well, if the state has taken control over the child, then the parent's say is basically nil. The state still can of course still respect the parent's preferences, and I still don't see why they should be taken away.

Competence of judgment, perhaps?

It's not like the preferences will harm the child any.

Obviously I disagree. To reiterate the relevant part:

I have a long list of things people can believe that serve as "red flags" for who I wouldn't want raising my child. My own biological mother saw the potential of atheism as problematic, and as part of my adoption my family agreed that I would have a religious education at some point in my life. As a result, I am a baptized and confirmed Lutheran, and frankly the lot of 'em can f@ck themselves. Mind you, it's not just about Christians: I want an equal stipulation--if you take my child anywhere near a church, you forfeit your parental rights.

But is that really healthy?

I don't think it's healthy to seed prejudice like that. I think it can harm the child. No Jews? No Christians? No gays? No interethnic families? No Republicans? What line do we draw? In Washington state, I could easily confound the system by stipulating that no parent unwilling to spank my child could have custody. Well, during her period in the foster system, that demand would be impossible to accommodate. Something like a fifth of the children awaiting adoption from the foster system have been in the system for five years or more. That's a long time to confuse the hell out of any bureaucracy.

And it's not like the drug addicts have no rights. Why should the state harm drug addicts more than they are already?

It's not that they should have no say, but where do we draw the line?

But which party is being descriminated against?

Offhand, I'd assign that role to whomever has the disagreeing gender. For instance, in one community--I forget which--the only "legal" issue blocking gay marriage was that one line said "Husband" and one line said "Wife".

However, it is more realistic to take each offense as it comes. Mr. Henneberger can't change his name on his passport because he's the wrong gender. Ms. Gossman is denied healthcare benefits because she's the wrong gender. The party discriminated against is the party deprived on any given occasion.

Rape is without consent.

Duress is lack of consent. The point of duress is that equality before the law is exchanged for sexual contact. The sanctity of marriage, at least in the modern usurpation of longstanding tradition, holds that the partners who consummate the marriage actually want to be with one another.

Think of "lesbian Jane". She can't marry the object of her affection and trust. But she can marry me. She can get those rights if she marries me. But, in order to be legally married, we must consummate, and I just don't think equal regard before the law counts as legitimate desire for coupling. I mean, think about it: she doesn't want to have sex with me, but if she pledges herself to me for the rest of her life and has sex with me, she can be "equal".

Sounds like a sick joke, doesn't it? But that's the current judicial standing. From Florida, no less. They don't call it "America's wang" for nothing.

I'm only appealing to tradition to explain why marriage is called "marriage". But if you want an actual specific tradition, then it's each individuals tradition, either religious or secular, that explains their terminology. But since ancient times, marriage was understood to be between a man and a women, and it's the most standard definition.

That tradition is no longer rationally-based. Were we Jews wandering the desert, I would actually agree with you.

As I mentioned before, not allowing gay marriage isn't discrimination. Therefore, the only other possible reason to allow gay marriage is if it's shown to be beneficial in someway.

And a hollow justification it is. If demanding rape in exchange for legal rights isn't discrimination ... well, thirty year-old virgin males, at least, will be worth their weight in gold in the meat market.

Oh, hey, let's think about the children for a minute. Because part of the reason "reproductive potential" doesn't qualify as an argument is because we have an excess of children and, well, the kids are alright, but progenitors are not necessarily the best caretakers.

So we've got a lot of kids needing homes. Various statistics averaging overlapping periods put the number between 110,000 and 140,000. And yes, something like a fifth of them have been in the system for five years.

Now, there are homes waiting for these children. And in many states, they can't go to these homes because the potential parents are unmarried gays. (In Florida, they'll put a kid with a convicted murderer and accused child molester before they'll give her over to a lesbian biological mother.)

Now think about all those gays who want to be married. Think about the standard that exists. Think about a child who grows up in a household founded in the rape culture.

Yeah. Think about the children. Hear the muffled sounds of love on dad's birthday, and mom's weeping the next morning.

Walking stress disorders as parents. Great idea. Couldn't think of a better one.

Welcome to America.

 

[okinrus]

Ms. Gossman is denied healthcare benefits because she's the wrong gender. The party discriminated against is the party deprived on any given occasion.

It is businesses that offer health insurance plans to workers. If the spouse of a married worker is covered and singles and gay partners aren't covered, then there's some unfairness. But I can't say it's on the government's side. First, in this case, it's the business' own plan to their workers. If the workers don't like it, then there're go somewhere else. If sufficient number of gays demand health insurance for their gay partners, then a government could arrange this. Of course, you could make the case that a business must compensate singles and those not receiving the marriage partner health insurance, but I don't think this case can be made. Workers agree to the contract and should know their health insurance plans. Second, there are many government definitions for which the company cannot discriminate between. For example, whites are called "white", and this terminology, or like terminology, is not viewed as discrimination. Only when a company attempts to put inplace hiring practice that discriminates based upon this terminology, is the company guilty of discrimination. Back to the issue, when people began fighting racial inequality, they didn't start calling whites blacks and blacks white. They attacked the inequality not the differentiating terminology. Over all, if gay insurance plans make sense from the business point of view, then it make sense for a company to support them. If it doesn, then gays have the option of starting their own company and discriminating against non-gays.

I don't think it's healthy to seed prejudice like that. I think it can harm the child. No Jews? No Christians? No gays? No interethnic families? No Republicans? What line do we draw? In Washington state, I could easily confound the system by stipulating that no parent unwilling to spank my child could have custody. Well, during her period in the foster system, that demand would be impossible to accommodate. Something like a fifth of the children awaiting adoption from the foster system have been in the system for five years or more. That's a long time to confuse the hell out of any bureaucracy.

Tiassa, any system like this would involve asking a set number of questions and there would be no guarantee the parents actually meet this definition.

That tradition is no longer rationally-based. Were we Jews wandering the desert, I would actually agree with you.

There are limits of rational-based systems. Soon or later you need axioms to build on, and usually these are hedged within some sort of terminology. For many americans, the leave-to-beaver family is good and idea, so what they consider beneficial is a family structure like this. Often what small segment of the population considers beneficial is not what the majority of the population considers beneficial, and there's no rational reason for calling some end "beneficial".

Oh, hey, let's think about the children for a minute. Because part of the reason "reproductive potential" doesn't qualify as an argument is because we have an excess of children and, well, the kids are alright, but progenitors are not necessarily the best caretakers.

I'm not sure if we an excess of children. It's not the "reproduction potential" that qualifies as an argument. It's that for a two person house-hold one parent is going to have to either stay at home, work part time, or put their children through day-care. Day care systems, while better than no care, have been shown not to be the best way. A child must identify with a group of caretakers over a long period of time. Simply said, this identification doesn't occur in many daycare systems.

Think of "lesbian Jane". She can't marry the object of her affection and trust. But she can marry me. She can get those rights if she marries me. But, in order to be legally married, we must consummate, and I just don't think equal regard before the law counts as legitimate desire for coupling. I mean, think about it: she doesn't want to have sex with me, but if she pledges herself to me for the rest of her life and has sex with me, she can be "equal".

Well, most states, I think, only offer some type of property division constracts. You're not really attaining anything remotely profitable unless if you desired to divide your property. With business's, however, the marriage might allow Jane to have an health insurance plan. But I've already gone over my arguments for this. Even if gay marriage is allowed, single men are discriminated against, and single men, too, could do what Jane is doing.

 

[Tiassa]

It is businesses that offer health insurance plans to workers. If the spouse of a married worker is covered and singles and gay partners aren't covered, then there's some unfairness. But I can't say it's on the government's side. First, in this case, it's the business' own plan to their workers. If the workers don't like it, then there're go somewhere else.

There's the matter of the Fourteenth Amendment. We know why the South doesn't like it, but conservatives in general also hold it in disdain.

Businesses face challenges, too. They offer domestic-partnership benefits if they feel they need to in order to compete. Once they're out there, those benefits can't discriminate against anyone based on gender. If DP benefits are available, that partner can be of either gender.

In terms of the Hennebergers and Gossmans, they're legally married, and the issue is that the Defense of Marriage Act instructs the government to discriminate against those married partners on the basis of their gender. In the one case, the National Passport Center, and in the other, the FBI.

If a company doesn't offer domestic-partnership benefits, that's a whole separate issue, and only people like the Hennebergers and Gossmans, who are already legally married, have complaint.

Back to the issue, when people began fighting racial inequality, they didn't start calling whites blacks and blacks white. They attacked the inequality not the differentiating terminology.

Nor do we call gays heterosexual. Heteros, however, like to call each other fags. Go figure.

The inequality is favoring one political assertion in order to establish a new definition that, yes, I insist, discriminates. Even at the basic level, the mere definition of the word "discriminate", the new legal definitions discriminate. From there, the question becomes more complex, but deprivation based on gender is inappropriate in the United States. The only thread left holding the homophobe-traditionalist argument intact is the "rape culture".

Tiassa, any system like this would involve asking a set number of questions and there would be no guarantee the parents actually meet this definition.

Then it's only extraneous. More paperwork for the bureaucracy. More factors for the committee.

There are limits of rational-based systems. Soon or later you need axioms to build on, and usually these are hedged within some sort of terminology. For many americans, the leave-to-beaver family is good and idea, so what they consider beneficial is a family structure like this. Often what small segment of the population considers beneficial is not what the majority of the population considers beneficial, and there's no rational reason for calling some end "beneficial".

Your focus on benefit is odd. Homosexuals are not obliged to outperform heterosexuals. Period. Additionally, given that what a small segment of the population considers beneficial disagrees with the majority, we ought to pause to consider how unreliable such a "mob", "group", "committee", or otherwise-collective mentality is. Britney Spears, Eminem, Bush v. Gore 2000, reality television ....

I'm not sure if we an excess of children.

Call it what you want. Heterosexuals produce children in such a manner as to result in over 100,000 of them being without homes each year.

It's not the "reproduction potential" that qualifies as an argument.

Would you please do me a favor and remind other homophobes of that point? In major media and at Sciforums alike, "gays don't reproduce" has made its appearances in the argument. Reproduction--propagation of species--is an assertion afoot in this debate. I'm very glad you see through such notions.

Well, most states, I think, only offer some type of property division constracts. You're not really attaining anything remotely profitable unless if you desired to divide your property.

If I'm a cancer patient, I might find it profitable to have my family by my side. How 'bout you?

Just for starters.

Even if gay marriage is allowed, single men are discriminated against, and single men, too, could do what Jane is doing.

Honestly, that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Could you clarify?

How are single men discriminated against in any relevant manner? What, should the government assign spouses? ("You! You're single! Here, marry her!" What would be the penalty for disobedience? Prison?)

And yes, men can be raped, too.

 

[okinrus]

Call it what you want. Heterosexuals produce children in such a manner as to result in over 100,000 of them being without homes each year.

What I mean is, do we have an excess number of children or an increasing number of parents not taking good care of them? Really, it depends on what's considered normal.

Then it's only extraneous. More paperwork for the bureaucracy. More factors for the committee.

It would be fairly simple to do. In fact, they'd probably be able to do scan it into the database automatically. All they'd have to do, then, is figure a way to find the match based upon waiting time and comparison.

If I'm a cancer patient, I might find it profitable to have my family by my side. How 'bout you?

But the same thing could happen to a person single guy. If he has had a girl friend for a few years, shouldn't the hospital allow his girl friend to go see him?

How are single men discriminated against in any relevant manner? What, should the government assign spouses? ("You! You're single! Here, marry her!" What would be the penalty for disobedience? Prison?)

OK, the businesses that offer health-insurance do so by taking certain amounts of money from an employee's pay check and then adding the employee to the business's pool of coveraged employees. If an employee has a spouse, the spouse might also be covered. But, if the employee doesn't have a spouse, he pays some amount-- averaged out of course--for the other employee's spouse. From a business sense, this unfairness is justified because married men and women are more stable, and businesses must also compete with other businesses that have similar plans.

 

[Tiassa]

What I mean is, do we have an excess number of children or an increasing number of parents not taking good care of them? Really, it depends on what's considered normal.

Theoretically, we have enough homes for them as an abstract count. But how many of those homes are being made available? Had we the resources available to give those children homes, they would not be in the foster system.

It would be fairly simple to do. In fact, they'd probably be able to do scan it into the database automatically. All they'd have to do, then, is figure a way to find the match based upon waiting time and comparison.

And states aren't allowed to discriminate on certain criteria. Communities including sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies, for instance, would be placing children into the foster system under conditions that such stipulations would be illegal.

But the same thing could happen to a person single guy. If he has had a girl friend for a few years, shouldn't the hospital allow his girl friend to go see him?

He can marry her. Why doesn't he?

The thing is that I can choose someone to occupy that station in my life. We all can. One who chooses to not fill that station with another person has made that choice. One who chooses to fill that station with another person ought to be able to do so without discriminating against gender.

OK, the businesses that offer health-insurance do so by taking certain amounts of money from an employee's pay check and then adding the employee to the business's pool of coveraged employees. If an employee has a spouse, the spouse might also be covered. But, if the employee doesn't have a spouse, he pays some amount-- averaged out of course--for the other employee's spouse. From a business sense, this unfairness is justified because married men and women are more stable, and businesses must also compete with other businesses that have similar plans.

I don't think that accurately reflects history. When I was young, my family had an insurance policy. My friends' families had insurance policies. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, those policies started becoming too expensive for the average American family. And note that word. All of these bizarre HMO arrangements and collective insurance pools we have going are designed to offset that problem.

The thing is that when workplaces introduced health benefits, they selected companies to offer policies to their workers. Those policies were already structured to reflect a primary policyholder and family.

The explanation you offer, at best, is the one developed after-the-fact, when we look into how the arrangement works.

I don't see how a single man is discriminated against by making a choice to not undertake any given endeavor. For instance, I believe everybody is entitled to eat and drink, but I can't force you to eat. And if you choose to sit in the corner and waste away into death, nobody can say that you have been discriminated against by not being given food. If I don't buy a scratch-ticket, am I entitled to a share of the winnings?

 

[okinrus]

I don't see how a single man is discriminated against by making a choice to not undertake any given endeavor.

No, it's not a choice. They might never be given the choice.

He can marry her. Why doesn't he?

Perhaps she doesn't want to. Perhaps he's engaged and hasn't yet been married.

I don't see how a single man is discriminated against by making a choice to not undertake any given endeavor.

If this argument was true, then gays, too, are people who've made a choice not to undertake any given endeavor, namely marriage. Also, like gays, many single men cannot "really" get married.

 

[Tiassa]

No, it's not a choice. They might never be given the choice.

If someone has been with a woman long enough to rely on her for that comfort, he's had plenty of opportunity to choose to ask her to marry him.

He can marry the object of his affections. As long as she's the proper gender, that is.

Perhaps she doesn't want to. Perhaps he's engaged and hasn't yet been married.

And? The wedding date is their choice.

You seem to be overlooking a problem here: You're talking about people who can have an object of affection and marry it.

This is not the case with homosexuals, Okinrus.

If this argument was true, then gays, too, are people who've made a choice not to undertake any given endeavor, namely marriage.

Back to advocating rape?

Also, like gays, many single men cannot "really" get married.

What prevents them?

 

[okinrus]

If someone has been with a woman long enough to rely on her for that comfort, he's had plenty of opportunity to choose to ask her to marry him.

Perhaps he's waiting for the relationship to see if she really loves him. In any case, it's even possible for a same-sex friend not to be able to visit. Point is, this problem healthcare problem; it has nothing to do with a person's marriage or lack thereof.

You seem to be overlooking a problem here: You're talking about people who can have an object of affection and marry it.

I've already told Mystech this, but a lot of our difference are because I'm unable to say a homosexual cannot change. Sure, the trial and difficulties are there, but I do think it's possible.

What prevents them?

A single man without a girl-friend really has no chance of being married. While you could say "get a girlfriend", the actual likelihood of finding someone to marry is quite small, and even if you were able to find someone, who's to say she's going to say "yes"? No, there's no obligation that any women will say "yes".

 

[Baron Max]

He can marry the object of his affections. As long as she's the proper gender, that is.

No, not necessarily. If that woman is his sibling or a close blood-relative or his daughter, he can't marry her!
He also can't marry her if he's already married to another woman.
A man can't marry a woman under the age of 18.
See? Marriage law restricts others in the same way as it restricts homos. Ain't no discrimination against homos, is there.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Perhaps he's waiting for the relationship to see if she really loves him.

Between that and Baron's post, I'm flabbergasted. To be honest, I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to such ludicrous points.

As to you, Okinrus, what the hell is that point? Seriously? If he's unsure of whether or not she loves him, then she's not the person he's chosen to fill that station. You make a better case for the elimination of marital recognition than you do for the preservation of heterosexual exclusivity.

Seriously: that's just a ridiculous counterpoint.

In any case, it's even possible for a same-sex friend not to be able to visit. Point is, this problem healthcare problem; it has nothing to do with a person's marriage or lack thereof.

So much for protecting the children, or equal rights, or respecting family.

What has happened in this last couple weeks that the people whose opinions would have been construed as promoting, protecting, or defending family have turned against the concept so viciously?

I've already told Mystech this, but a lot of our difference are because I'm unable to say a homosexual cannot change. Sure, the trial and difficulties are there, but I do think it's possible.

Ah, I see. So everybody should change in order to meet your standards before you allow them a shred of dignity or respect?

You can change. You could change and become a nice, thinking, respectful person. It would be a lot easier than your current route of attacking the family and asking that everybody else change and meet your irrational standards. Sure, there will be trial and difficulties, but it's the easier, more objectively appropriate route. All it requires is that you get a sense of honesty. With gays you're going to have to assail the brain with chemicals in order to have a chance. Of course, if they snap in that process, you can always conveniently blame homosexuality. After all, they were gay ....

A single man without a girl-friend really has no chance of being married. While you could say "get a girlfriend", the actual likelihood of finding someone to marry is quite small, and even if you were able to find someone, who's to say she's going to say "yes"? No, there's no obligation that any women will say "yes".

Okinrus, help me out here, as I have a tough decision to make. Do I get out my green hat and obliterate your post, since it's obviously not to be taken seriously? Or do you feel that bending over backwards to compare as equal a person who refuses to make a choice and a person who is refused the opportunity to make that choice will serve this or any other discussion well, so that I should find some form of response that doesn't involve laughing at a really stupid argument?

Don't worry, you've got company. I'm in the same position with Baron. Do I dignify such a lack of dignity and integrity, or do I step on his right to express himself?

Or is it that you're arguing for the elimination of all marriages under the law? Because I will accept that outcome as well, which would mean we could agree on something for once.

Perhaps you should look into the nature of laws and rights in the United States. You'll find that your arguments, while they may gratify your cruelty and disdain for humanity, don't add up to much compared to the structure of the society.

Nor did I realize, given the industry surrounding weddings, that there were so few weddings taking place each year. After all, if a single man without a girlfriend has no chance of getting married, then there must not be many single men getting girlfriends and getting married.

I'll have to look into it. For an industry working to the tune of billions of dollars annually ... wow. I knew weddings were getting expensive, but wow. No wonder your argument despises marriage itself.

However, that doesn't explain the rejection of family.

Perhaps you should think about what that word--family--means. To you, to society, whatever. Just give it some serious, decent, and honest thought.

 

[Tiassa]

(Ratt song goes here)

Baron Max

Those points have already been addressed repeatedly, in varying contexts, in topics pertaining to gay marriage in this very forum.

Your answers are: objective risk potential, objective risk potential, and consent.

Arguments against same-sex marriage that assert objective risk potential are seriously weak. Traditionally, issues pertaining to homosexuality see the conservative position ignore consent.

What disgusts me so greatly about your post is that there is a pattern in discussions of all stripes around here where we must constantly be recycling through the fundamental points already established, and people choose those points to argue, thus avoiding an issue that may be more complicated, or simply different.

And I'm not sure what to do about this. Because you have the right to express yourself, and while it's not my place to require you to read through those other topics, at some point I must draw a line. If you're not putting enough effort into it to understand even those basic points you've mentioned, then I'm not sure what respect the point deserves. Because it doesn't take much effort to figure out that there are problems with incestuous reproduction that hurts both individuals. We can't make an exception for barren incestuous couples, or even those willing to undertake permanent reproductive suspension in order to validate their love without causing harm to others. Polygamy? On its face, its acceptable as long as "sanctity of family" or other such rhetoric doesn't enter into it. But that superficial value is all it has. Society may choose to undertake the massive burden of institutionalizing polygamy. If so, well, we'll see what people come up with. If I can't find a reason to say no at that point, I won't. And what is it with conservatives and consent?

What is it about rape that so many conservatives seem to like?

And how often are we to ignore consent?

Look around: one of the reasons so few people are raising the "Why can't I just marry my dog, then?" is that it's a dead horse. This last short period since the new year has been unique. For fourteen years, I've been hearing conservative homophobes make bizarre comparisons in denouncing homosexuality that hinge on ignoring the concept of consent. In Oregon they tried lumping together homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. Throughout the 1990s and into the new century, conservatives have consistently ignored the notion of consent. We're even down to the point, as Okinrus is desperately trying to squirm around, that the law regards "no gay marriage" as equality, since homosexuals can obtain these rights by consenting under duress to unwanted sexual intercourse.

I'm not surprised at all that a general argument that despises sexual consent should come to the point it has, relying on rape to justify an assertion of equality.

Advocacy of the rape culture is not a smart argument. It is not a decent argument. It is a selfish and hurtful argument that contributes nothing to the solution.

Ain't no discrimination? Ain't no thought, Baron.

I mean, really: I value people's input when it's not ridiculously insulting. I'm loath to put on my green hat in any argument I'm taking part in, so if this sort of crap keeps up, I will consider withdrawing from all argument and simply using my green hat in order to protect the potential for useful, relevant, and serious discussion.

Anybody paying attention to this issue, whether in the public discourse or ours here at Sciforums, ought to already understand the points you raised. I mean, you won't hear many pundits or conservative journalists raising those points; they already understand that such arguments are as weak as it gets.

Perhaps it would be more fair, though, at this point, to simply ask you why we should allow incestuous, polygamous, or child marriage. The reason the points are acknowledged as weak is that nobody has successfully defended them. There's no guarantee that it can't be done, so perhaps you can make those points clear for all of us.

(And then, just to be "equal", should we ignore those points if you manage to establish them? Just keep saying otherwise without addressing your established argument? You know, hide and pretend nobody's ever thought of this or that point before?)

Update on Edit: It occurs to me that I should at least remind you that your points are already addressed in this topic. If you find that address insufficient, at least tell us why, and I'll try again. See my initial response to this topic. Oh, well. I did say it was a gamble.

 

[okinrus]

As to you, Okinrus, what the hell is that point? Seriously? If he's unsure of whether or not she loves him, then she's not the person he's chosen to fill that station. You make a better case for the elimination of marital recognition than you do for the preservation of heterosexual exclusivity.

I'd want many friends I'd have, both male and female, in the hospital. I wouldn't want to marry them, though. Similar to the friends, with girlfriend the issue is more of time. I might not want to marry her the first year, but perhaps if the relationship works out past the first year, then I'd marry her, the basic idea being I'd want her to visit me in the hospital but I'm not ready for marriage yet. Now your overall goal is correct: people in gay relationships should be able to visit each other. Your statement that if gays were married, then those gays who were married could visit each other in the hospital is correct, too. But what's not correct here is the converse of the this statement. Allowing gay marriage is not the only way they'd be able to visit each other in the hospital. If they the couple changed their lastname to have the same lastname, they'd be able to visit each other, I'm sure. And if the couple is able to provide a witness to their relationship,they, too, would be able to visit each other. If civil unions are allowed, gays would be allowed to visit each other. Bottomline is that your goal has many other possible ways to acheive it, and gay marriage falls short by not allowing good friends and those in long term relationships to visit each other. It's not a satisfactory solution.

Ah, I see. So everybody should change in order to meet your standards before you allow them a shred of dignity or respect?

No, I understand why some people might support gay marriage. But I must remind you, it's not proven that gays must remain gays. No, not at all. But I'm not telling you this assumption is bad or unlikely, only that different people can believe otherwise while still being rational.

Okinrus, help me out here, as I have a tough decision to make. Do I get out my green hat and obliterate your post, since it's obviously not to be taken seriously?

No, the issue at hand is whether it was meant to be taken seriously. If it wasn't meant, then you probably should do so. But if it was, then it's likely your own bias at play or I've made some error in my judgement.

Or do you feel that bending over backwards to compare as equal a person who refuses to make a choice and a person who is refused the opportunity to make that choice will serve this or any other discussion well, so that I should find some form of response that doesn't involve laughing at a really stupid argument?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "equal." My original post was approaching the issue more from the benefits given to those married rather than the actual capabilty to marry. But the argument should still be valid. Gays aren't forbidden to marry; they can't marry because of their attraction to the same sex. But we really lack the tools to go any further here. Can we differentiate between the physicals reasons that stop gays from marrying someone of the opposite sex and the socio-economic issues, the fear or disease, and the basic lack of luck that stop heterosexuals from marrying? Is it true that person who doesn't ever choose, wasn't capable of making the choice? It involves free will, doesn't it? Many are never able to have long-term relationships, either because of themeselves or of their other partner's chosing. Many are divorced and, having reached middle age, aren't able to marry again. Many are too young to marry. Some suffer from AIDS and like diseases that make them unable to marry. All these reasons combined suggest a substantial portion of the population cannot marry, but are heterosexual.

 

[Baron Max]

...there are problems with incestuous reproduction that hurts both individuals.

What problems that hurt both individuals? And is that for each and every single, possible incestuous couple? Please elaborate.

My guess is that if the couple had been brothers or sisters, your argument would have been completely accepting of THAT incestuous marriage. But with hetero siblings, you've found a strange, tho' unconvincing argument against it.

And who's even mentioned reproduction at all? ...we're talking about the right to marry? Or shall we also try to read the future and speculate on possible problems, THEN deny the marriage based on the POSSIBLE problems? Hmm? And just so you know, all children of incest are NOT "abnormal" or "problem" children.

What is it about rape that so many conservatives seem to like? ... And how often are we to ignore consent?

You've obviously missed the point altogether, didn't you? (Did it on purpose, didn't you?? ...LOL!)

Our society SET the age of consent at 18 and you agree with it and think it's fine and anything less than that is rape, right?

But ...notice the society also set the rule that same-sex couples can NOT marry, but you don't like that law, do you? You just want to pick n' choose the laws that suit you and your arguments, while at the same time, making snide accusations about me and my issues.

1. Society sets one marriage restriction you like and want to keep.
2. Society sets another marriage restriction that you DON'T like and want to get rid of and claim that you have "reasonable" arguments to do so. Huh?

I don't see how you can fight so hard for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, yet find it so easy to agree that others can NOT marry! It makes me suspect your arguments completely.

Those points have already been addressed repeatedly,...

Addressed? Yeah, sure ...just sloughed off with little or no reasonable arguments to back it up. Addressing some issue is NOT the same as settling or deciding that issue. Re-read your post, Tiassa, and you'll see that all you did was basically say that society has deemed those marriages unacceptable. But isn't that what society has also done with same-sex marriages? Hmmm? No, addressing the issue is not the same as dealiing with it.

Because you have the right to express yourself,...

No, it's ONLY because you allow it. I believe that you've GIVEN me the right on a temporary basis and it can be withdrawn at any time and all of my posts can be totally deleted from any and all data banks.

I also wonder why you seem so upset by my questions? What is it that upsets you? You could just as easily ignored my post(s) altogether instead of making the snide comments that you did ....and took a lot of worlds to do, too!

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

What problems that hurt both individuals? And is that for each and every single, possible incestuous couple? Please elaborate.

Actually that's a typo, a symptom of being interrupted while typing. Apologies for confusing you, although I will say in my defense, it happens remarkably little considering how often I'm interrupted.

At any rate, it "hurts both individuals and society".

My guess is that if the couple had been brothers or sisters, your argument would have been completely accepting of THAT incestuous marriage. But with hetero siblings, you've found a strange, tho' unconvincing argument against it.

Your guess is from somewhere outside the galaxy of reason, although I'll let it go at that, because of the typographical issue noted above.

And who's even mentioned reproduction at all? ...we're talking about the right to marry?

One word: "Consummation".

You've obviously missed the point altogether, didn't you

No, you've obviously missed society.

Our society SET the age of consent at 18 and you agree with it and think it's fine and anything less than that is rape, right?

Anything that violates consent is rape. You want a new standard for consent? I'll hear your proposal.

But ...notice the society also set the rule that same-sex couples can NOT marry, but you don't like that law, do you?

The argument is over whether or not society can make that rule. By the current framework, I say no. The federal courts disagree with me, but Judge Moody's ruling relies on the rape culture as the homosexual's means to equality.

You just want to pick n' choose the laws that suit you and your arguments, while at the same time, making snide accusations about me and my issues.

How much do we owe your lack of awareness?

I don't see how you can fight so hard for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, yet find it so easy to agree that others can NOT marry! It makes me suspect your arguments completely.

Fine. Let's put it this way, Baron: you don't seem smart enough to get it; it's in the way you argue the point. Attempts to establish objective justification for homosexual prohibition have failed. The largest part of that failure is that homophobes have just given up. They repeat their points over and over again without considering the response. Like you, for instance. The disrespect you show in ignoring that response is troubling.

Addressed? Yeah, sure ...just sloughed off with little or no reasonable arguments to back it up. Re-read your post, Tiassa, and you'll see that all you did was basically say that society has deemed those marriages unacceptable. But isn't that what society has also done with same-sex marriages? Hmmm? No, addressing the issue is not the same as dealiing with it.

Now, this is why I think your argument suggests you're not smart enough to get it:

(1) Competence of consent - If you would like to argue that juvenile and adult brains make decisions in the same way, you're welcome to take it to the Supreme Court, since they just ruled the other way.

(2) Elevated risk of birth defect - Incestuous offspring run a higher rate of birth defects. Both the affected offspring and society are hurt by this.

(3) Terminology - It will be a harder fight to establish the right of polygamy. Part of the objective reason for this is that the human union between two people is at stake. Not the union between three or ten or twenty. Gender is a recognized class for protection against discrimination. Numbers are not. If you wish to change this, by all means try. Give me a good enough reason, and I won't stand in the way.

(4) Same-sex restrictions are new - When Lawrence v. Texas struck down antisodomy laws, there were no marriage prohibitions in place. That's why people are now rushing to establish gender-discriminatory laws to define marriage according to a subjective standard.​

I assert those are all objective points. There are objective reasons that testify against marriage of minors, direct blood relatives, and persons already married.

I also assert that the arguments against same-sex marriage are all subjective at best, and many are largely fictitious.

So I think your attempt to compare mere preference to objective, observable reality is problematic. They're not the same thing. One is founded in standing fact, the other in opinion.

I believe that you've GIVEN me the right on a temporary basis and it can be withdrawn at any time and all of my posts can be totally deleted from any and all data banks.

I was referring to your abstract right to express yourself.

Nonetheless, I don't have the authority to cause your posts to be deleted from the database. If I delete your post, it still exists: it's just invisible to anyone who's not a moderator of this forum, or a supermod, or an administrator.

I also wonder why you seem so upset by my questions? What is it that upsets you?

If you wonder, you may not be paying attention. Or maybe it is that other problem of appearance I mentioned. Look, you can write sentences, so what's the problem with reading them?

What disgusts me so greatly about your post is that there is a pattern in discussions of all stripes around here where we must constantly be recycling through the fundamental points already established, and people choose those points to argue, thus avoiding an issue that may be more complicated, or simply different.

I guess you missed it, eh?

What's really sad about it is that no matter how many times I repeat myself, it doesn't really matter. Go read through the "script" portion ("Bigot/Response") of my initial post in this topic.

What upsets me about the questions is that you've done essentially the same thing: apparently ignored points on the table in order to ask the question again.

If you don't like the answer, address those points. Getting that mere courtesy out of people is a bit like pulling teeth.

You could just as easily ignored my post(s) altogether instead of making the snide comments that you did ....and took a lot of worlds to do, too!

And I could also just as easily get out my damn green hat, as we're both sufficiently aware. However, if I am to maintain any decent presumption (despite evidence to the contrary) that you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion, well, that depends in large part on you. On whether or not you choose to continue being disrespectful.

As to the number of words (or worlds), well, you have a point. I should use fewer, and smaller words (or worlds), since that's all your posts seem capable of dealing with. Heaven help you that you should put some thought into it.