Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:Separate but equal still remains... not equal.

That solution simply won't work.

What separate but equal? Think before you type boyo er girlo!
No one gets marriage under the state. Everyone gets the civil license treatment. You can call it what you want-marriage, hitched, Sklarged, whatever. Have whatever or no ceremony that you want.

Frazzled wrote:What separate but equal?

The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What separate but equal?

The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.

Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.

Edit: Or at least that's what Frazz is saying from what Azarel said.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What separate but equal?

The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.

Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.

You say that as though reasonable discourse and compromise are something that can be achieved on this topic on this board.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What separate but equal?

The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.

Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.

Edit: Or at least that's what Frazz is saying from what Azarel said.

Thats what I'm saying anyway.

Monster Rain wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What separate but equal?

The solution number two presented by Azazel, which you have apparently taken a liking two.

Errr the solution they're presenting LITERALLY makes everyone the same though and removes the condition of "marriage" from federal purview. It becomes a religious matter that you and your partner of choice can chose to make a legal matter of under a civil union with your local government.

You say that as though reasonable discourse and compromise are something that can be achieved on this topic on this board.

Hope springs eternal I suppose. If not for reasonable discourse then reading comprehension and not jumping to conclusions after skimming for buzz words.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Edit: Or at least that's what Frazz is saying from what Azarel said.

I see where fraz got that from now, but that wasn't what Azarel was saying.

sirlynchmob wrote:
That whole statement is laced with intolerance. How dare they want the 1000's of benefits the government grants to married couples.

Read what I wrote again. There is perfectly valid compromise present, and that is pushing for the elimination of the word "marriage" from legal parlance. I further gave general explanations for why that position isn't popular with either side. I'm not besmirching the claim made by supporters of gay marriage at all, in fact you'll note up thread I stated that their position is superior. I'm simply explaining why the acceptance of my proffered compromise isn't wide spread.

sirlynchmob wrote:
As it is today, religions have no say in who can and can't get married, you can get your license from the government, and get married in the court house.

No, they don't, but religious people do have a say in what laws are passed, and they can support certain laws for religious reasons if they choose to do so. That doesn't mean those reasons are good, but it does mean they exist separate from the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broodstar wrote:
Ad hominem - short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy, more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Fallacies are something that everyone does on accident, They're most commonly found in the media and politics and it's easy to understand why, fallacies aspecially Ad Hominem is just fething entertaining.

I'm well aware of how fallacies work. Ad hominem is not generally accepted as being universally fallacious because, as an informal fallacy, it requires that the conclusion be unsupported by the available premises. This means that if I attack you personally so long as the premises of my argument support the attack on your person (and the attack is relevant to the argument, such as calling someone a bigot in argument regarding the nature of bigotry, or the moral acceptability of homosexuality*), it isn't a fallacy despite being ad hominem in the broadest sense of the term.


*The second applies because moral arguments are fundamentally aesthetic arguments, which means circumstance and disposition are valid sources of criticism.

Would you also then say that its acceptable to require ID to purchase a gun?

Yeah, you do.

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
That whole statement is laced with intolerance. How dare they want the 1000's of benefits the government grants to married couples.

Read what I wrote again. There is perfectly valid compromise present, and that is pushing for the elimination of the word "marriage" from legal parlance. I further gave general explanations for why that position isn't popular with either side. I'm not besmirching the claim made by supporters of gay marriage at all, in fact you'll note up thread I stated that their position is superior. I'm simply explaining why the acceptance of my proffered compromise isn't wide spread.

sirlynchmob wrote:
As it is today, religions have no say in who can and can't get married, you can get your license from the government, and get married in the court house.

No, they don't, but religious people do have a say in what laws are passed, and they can support certain laws for religious reasons if they choose to do so. That doesn't mean those reasons are good, but it does mean they exist separate from the law.

.

Ok lets look at what you wrote again. Your whole statement is horribly wrong. The libral side is trying to force conservatives to accept it? Really? Take off the tinfoil hat. it is not either side trying to stick it to the other, its one side discriminating against the other. They can support any laws they want, but if the laws violate the equal protection clause, then it is unconstitutional. You're side might have a problem separating the idea's, but the side for allowing all marriages just want equal rights from the government as due all americans. You can fight it all you want but in the end, all those laws denying people the right to marry will be thrown out in court.

dogma wrote:
The biggest sticking point is that many people, on both sides of the debate, have difficulty clearly separating the idea of marriage as a religious concept from marriage as a legal concept. In part this is due to the emotive nature of the issue, and in part its due to either side attempting to stick it to the other. On the conservative side this takes the form of basic unwillingness to see homosexual unions granted the same standing as heterosexual ones; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance. On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future; hence the absence of support for stripping marriage from legal parlance.
.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ok lets look at what you wrote again. Your whole statement is horribly wrong. The libral side is trying to force conservatives to accept it? Really? Take off the tinfoil hat. it is not either side trying to stick it to the other, its one side discriminating against the other.

Dude, I've been around this debate for the better part of a decade, don't attempt to talk down to me with that "tinfoil hat" garbage. There is a very real, and prominent component within gay marriage activism that absolutely takes certain positions explicitly because they are unpopular with conservatives, rather than any appeal to equality of privilege. This is why you still see extensive efforts to overturn legislation that affords homosexuals civil unions that are marriages in all but name. Sure, people will try to cite the issue of "separate but equal" however this doesn't apply in a case where the equality is a matter of the letter of the law, rather than the quality of available facilities.

Sure, the liberal side of the debate is attempting to secure equal privileges for homosexual couples, but that isn't all they're doing. Just as the conservative side of the debate isn't just trying to "protect marriage". For what its worth, I think the liberal side is justified in their vindictive attitude considering the circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that its there.

sirlynchmob wrote:
They can support any laws they want, but if the laws violate the equal protection clause, then it is unconstitutional.

Sure, but most legislation that forbids homosexual marriage does not do so. It instead defines marriage as between a man and a women, a homosexual man is still fully capable of marrying a woman. If it actively denied homosexuals the ability to marry at all, that would violate equal protection, though it would also be unenforceable in any non-malicious sense.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You're side might have a problem separating the idea's, but the side for allowing all marriages just want equal rights from the government as due all americans. You can fight it all you want but in the end, all those laws denying people the right to marry will be thrown out in court.

My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.

Dogma and I are on different sides of these issues, but what he just said deserves respect from everyone. He reasserted his position, but did so in an intelligent and honest way.

We need more honesty in all of this.

I will (sheepishly) thank Dogma for his efforts today.

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.

Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp. Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?

Sure there's vindictiveness, you have one side using the same arguments they made against allowing inter racial couples to marry, and now using them against same sex couples.

Then you have the other side who just want to be treated as equals in society and not as second class citizens.

shouldn't the argument go: The liberal side wants "To secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, at the state and federal level through grassroots organizing, education, action and partnerships"
http://www.marriageequality.org/about-meusa

But then again its odd you draw the line between liberals and conservatives. wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?

IMO, Everyone should have the same rights, to choose between a man, a woman, yourself, robots, cyborgs, an amusement park ride, a car, a pet, a wall, a corpse, a rock, a cartoon character, etc. Any laws being passed to define what a marriage should be is discriminating against all other forms of marriages. The bolded ones already happened, and might as well get the robots in now just to avoid those same people who oppose equality getting all bent out of shape latter on.

What would be wrong with marrying a cyborg under the current system?

xole wrote:What would be wrong with marrying a cyborg under the current system?

D cell usage would be tremendous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

My side? I'm extremely supportive of gay marriage, I simply detest many of the arguments made in favor of it because many of them are awful. I'm also, unlike a lot of people on either side, willing to admit that there is a degree of vindictiveness that permeates the debate.

Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp. Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?

Sure there's vindictiveness, you have one side using the same arguments they made against allowing inter racial couples to marry, and now using them against same sex couples.

Then you have the other side who just want to be treated as equals in society and not as second class citizens.

shouldn't the argument go: The liberal side wants "To secure legally recognized civil marriage equality for all, without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity, at the state and federal level through grassroots organizing, education, action and partnerships"
http://www.marriageequality.org/about-meusa

But then again its odd you draw the line between liberals and conservatives. wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?

IMO, Everyone should have the same rights, to choose between a man, a woman, yourself, robots, cyborgs, an amusement park ride, a car, a pet, a wall, a corpse, a rock, a cartoon character, etc. Any laws being passed to define what a marriage should be is discriminating against all other forms of marriages. The bolded ones already happened, and might as well get the robots in now just to avoid those same people who oppose equality getting all bent out of shape latter on.

Thats not having a polite argument. Thats biasing the terms such that you can follow on and then shout "BIGOT!!!"

Here's some easier arguments:
Pro:
* Equal rights -contract law argument
* Lack of harm
* Historically marriage was a contract
* Historically marriage evolved depending on time and culture.
* Religion counter argument. Different religions view "marriage" in different ways (if can be supported)

Con
*Religion argument
- -- C: different religiions. Freedom of religion. C3 My religion, the Holy Order of Noodle Bugs, is just fine with it. Do you want sharia law telling YOU what to do?
*History argument
----C: different depending on history and society.

*Impugns sanctity of marriage argument
---C: How? Your marriage is as strong as you make it. What I do doesn't impact your marriage. C2: lots of things impact you. Thats part of the US society. You don't have the freedom to not be offended by others' speech or behavior.

*Children argument
---C:Same argument as mixed race adoption. There are more children in need of good homes than good homes. As long as its a good home its better.

The gay marriage debate is simply solved.

-Define the governmental form of marriage as a civil union between two consenting adults.

-The religious form of marriage can be whatever that particular church/religion wants it to be defined as, provided it doesn't conflict with the Governmental form. (so they can't marry children, etc)

Under this gay marriage would be perfectly legally binding when done by a Justice of the Peace, and could even be done at a church if the church was consenting, but the church doesn't have to. But the main point is that at the same time no religion should be able to use their personal doctrine to control what the government should be able to do.

If there is a nice gay couple that wants to get married at the town hall, then they should be safe from the limitations of "the church". They are consenting adults who are entering a legally binding contract and should get the same rights from the government they monetarily support as every other tax-paying adult in America.

Here's one for the churches....if I have to put up with the parts of Government that are Church-based, then the other way around gets to happen as well. If a marriage at a non-church property must be performed a certain way because the Church says so, then anything the Church does that is discrimination should be prosecuted as discrimination/bigotry because the government says so.

It COULD be simply solved, but it won't.

*yes, I'm being cheeky here...

I don't know why they wanna get into this mess.:

Marriage 2.0 is a very unequal contract where the legal power balance both within the marriage and after the divorce is heavily biased against the primary breadwinner. Given that this is today’s legal reality why would you want to sign such a one sided contract? There are simply no benefits in marriage for the primary breadwinner under these Marriage 2.0 rules. None whatsoever. Ask yourself now: “What is in it for me?”. If the above hasn’t yet convinced you to avoid this mutated institution that has become a a giant legal trap, then you owe it to yourself to keep learning more about the risks of saying “I do”.

Texas, like most of the former Spanish royal holdings, is superior in having community property.

How do you know who will become the "primary breadwinner", or if you'll even have one in the relationship?

Frequently it changes over the years.

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Which ones?

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Thats a fact now. Its fine by me but this majority bs is trully bs.

Arizona is 57% Caucasian

Texas is 45% Caucasian; while less than a simple majority, is still the largest group.

azazel the cat wrote:

Spoiler:

Frazzled wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What happens when "white, straight Christian majorities" are no longer majorities? Thats the case in several US states and growing.

Which ones?

Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. Thats a fact now. Its fine by me but this majority bs is trully bs.

Arizona is 57% Caucasian

Texas is 45% Caucasian; while less than a simple majority, is still the largest group.

Interesting.. I wonder if Illegal Immigrants are truly counted? (I hope they are, they're here anyways).

Not likely. And ethnic minorities are always more likely to be underrepresented as well. But generally, census data will have a dark figure of less than 5% if it wants to be considered in any way meaningful.

TheHammer wrote:It's bigoted to point out that straight white men hold a disproportionate amount of power? It isn't just political, but in business, finance, civil society, religious institutions, the military, and every other facet of society where this is true.

Maybe it has something to do with probability and that 72% of the US population is white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

It has to be said.


ALTER PROBABILITY!

Kovnik Obama wrote:It has to be said.


ALTER PROBABILITY!

Anything is possible!

Frazzled wrote:

Thats not having a polite argument. Thats biasing the terms such that you can follow on and then shout "BIGOT!!!"

What wasn't polite?

I asked him to clarify his remark.
I offered an alternative statement.
Then stated my opinion on what equality should look like.

I agree with your statements and it sounds like you understands the debate going on. You also didn't say anything about forcing anyone to accept anything, and you even listed Equality first.

I'm just not used to having such a huge cross culture of people to argue with, but I was considerable more polite then what was considered polite in the previous sub culture I belonged to

When I think of cyborgs I think of something that starts as a robot then had human parts added to it. The human parts being grown in a tube and not taken from someone who used to live. But ya I guess we do have people around who could be classified as cyborgs.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Separate but equal still remains... not equal.

That solution simply won't work.

What separate but equal? Think before you type boyo er girlo!
No one gets marriage under the state. Everyone gets the civil license treatment. You can call it what you want-marriage, hitched, Sklarged, whatever. Have whatever or no ceremony that you want.

I actually think thats a good idea frazz, make it, in the eyes of the govt its nothing more then tow people who share income, if you want to get married you go to a church.

I think that's the solution that most reasonable people agree with.

Including every gay person I know.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:It has to be said.


ALTER PROBABILITY!

Anything is possible!

I feel priviledge having for the first time witnessed the birth of a meme, even if it's only for one subforum

sirlynchmob wrote:
Then why are you using those arguments? your arguments for both sides, sound like they come from the conservative camp.

I'm using those arguments because they're descriptively neutral, which is how I always aspire to argue. As a matter of course I attempt to look at the world as it is, rather than as I want it to be. I suspect they sound conservative to you because they're critical of the gay marriage movement, despite my nominal support for the cause (conversely, they often sound liberal to conservatives). The telling part here being how you ignored the part of my original post where I effectively stated that many people on the conservative side really are trying to oppress homosexuals.

To simplify: I don't pick sides and then commit myself to that side on an emotional level. I evaluate situations, attempt to discern why there is a situation, and then decide who has a better case in as honest a manner as possible.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Or do you support gay marriage because you think "On the liberal side its about forcing conservatives to accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual ones, both present, past, and future"?

I support gay marriage because there is no objectively discernible reason that they should not be allowed to marry, at least so long as we're assuming equality is something to aspire to. In that vein, the conservative side has not been able to produce a cogent argument to deny equality (in the loose sense) to homosexuals, with most of their positions amount to little more than "This makes us uncomfortable."

And yes, I put religious arguments firmly in that category.

As alluded to above, I do not think all gay marriage advocates are vindictive, nor do I think vindictiveness is the heart of the movement, but I do think that vindictiveness (on both sides) is the main reason compromise is not accepted. The main reason for this is that the leaders in both camps are often guilty of using rhetoric that is designed to stir emotions, though that is arguably necessary.

sirlynchmob wrote:
wouldn't the line actually be more: those for equality for all americans and those opposed to equality for all americans?

Not with respect to this single issue. I'm not referring to liberals and conservatives in general, I'm referring to liberals and conservatives relative to this single issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AegisGrimm wrote:

-Define the governmental form of marriage as a civil union between two consenting adults.

-The religious form of marriage can be whatever that particular church/religion wants it to be defined as, provided it doesn't conflict with the Governmental form. (so they can't marry children, etc)

That would be a simple solution were either side willing to accept it. The vindictiveness I mentioned plays a part, but the larger issue is that campaigning on a platform of removing "marriage" from the legal lexicon would instantly be turned into "Candidate X wants to destroy marriage!"