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.

Ozymandias wrote:So you are saying that homosexuality is immoral? Strange, my gay uncle is a hell of a lot more moral than just about anyone I know. He and his partner have been together 20 years. I've been with my wife 2 months. Which is the stronger relationship?

Also, History and Public Opinion allowed for slavery once upon a time.

We can do this dance all day.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No, I was trying to say (poorly) that if we are unable to agree on what is moral, we then rely on history and popular vote. It is a fall back. (i.e. we agree killing is immoral and have no need to rely on history or a popular vote)

I'm guessing by polygamy we are actually talking about polygyny? Polygamy being a more generic term.

malfred wrote:Wait, slavery isn't allowed anymore?

Crap.

Don't worry Malf, willing sex slaves are ok.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Crap!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
1 - I will look into the 'women forbidden to own property" thing. I thought Sparta was full of woman ownerships. But as to your point that the purpose of marriage has changed, that is your opinion. 52% of California disagreed.

They may have, I was thinking primarily of Athens, and should have been more specific. Either way, people in California do not have the right to legislate that definition for other people. They can lobby for the removal of 'marriage' from the entire legal process, but they cannot make it a law which excludes a group of people based upon identity. At least not without providing significant evidence which substantiates some adverse affect of homosexual marriage in modern society.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
2- You are right. Humans are not animals. But if I were to categorize the sexual habits of our species, I would say that we are heterosexual with a tendency for abnormalities.

All creatures which reproduce sexually are 'heterosexual' in the broad sense. That category is meaningless with respect to any scientific conversation.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Because the legal argument uses the same tools. That is the whole point of my posts. Not to say "You are wrong" but to say "the argument is flawed". Gay marriage is not a bomb that will blow up America! But the argument that "it is natural" applies to pedophiles too. The argument that it is "only one law in the way" of gay marriage applies to pedophiles too. The argument that "Love is all you need" applies to pedophiles too. It is the flawed arguments that I am combating.

The key difference is that homosexuality has no adverse affect on either partner, without outside interference, as it is nominally just as even-handed as any heterosexual pairing per our current understanding of the age of consent.

Frazzled wrote:No, but only because the the ordained minister has to follow the law in that state for who may be married and when.

Remember marriage is religious but its also a contractual & property right (the older use for). Hence the state involvement. Now you see why the state should not be involved...

Let the state determine legal contractual rights and let the religions choose who they will permit to "marry."

It already works this way. Gay couples are free right now to get married by any church that is willing to do it, it just won't have any legal standing. This isn't good enough, as you're still excluding people from establishing contractual relationships that are freely accessible to others.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote: What is the legal justification to stop polygamy? If the persons are consenting adults? We can bring up thoughts to support all of these moral rulings, but in the end it comes down to Morals. Right and wrong (viewed thru the democratic process of majority rules).

It quickly becomes a legal nightmare, as welfare and tax breaks are subjective enough when looking at married couples, they become a nightmare when you have multiple people in the relationship. Then you have to start thinking about asset splits and child custody in the event of divorce. It’s an absolute nightmare.

Compare that to gay marriage, which has none of these problems.

Answer 1: The argument did not include God/religion. Even in ancient Greece, when homosexuality was accepted and even encouraged, marriage was between a man and woman. So historic precedence of a society accepting homosexuality but respecting heterosexual marriage.

The Greek idea of homosexuality was not at like the modern notion. It was a dominant/submissive role, where an older man would take a younger boy in a mentoring role, and this included proving who was dominant by buggering him. Then the young boy would mature, take a wife and make babies. When he became an older gentleman he’d take a boy of his own.

Utterly different to modern ideas of consenting adults being free to form the relationship that makes them happy.

Answer 2: The traditional form of polygamy is again the most "natural" model of marriage once 'religion' is out of the way. In nature, most mammals have a dominate male that is the sole breeder with a herd/troop/school/pride/etc. of females. So if we are using the 'natural' argument, polygamy has a better footing than homosexuality.

It’s a good thing no-one is attempting to justify gay marriage because its natural, isn’t it? That said, there are countless documented case of homosexuality in nature.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:By that line of thinking, since Christians believe "Thou shalt not kill" and the government agrees, they are interfering with religions that make use of human sacrifice. Is it wrong to kill people? I think so! But that is my Morals. Others are free to disagree.

Maybe you should at least read this thread before commenting. The reductor ad absurdum argument that allowing one thing means that any other random thing should also be allowed was already tried by frazzled – he used baby eating. It was pointed as silly then.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:YUCK!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo about those above mentioned Bonobos.

"Sexual activity happens within the immediate family as well as outside it,"

I hope noone uses this to support homosexual marriage!

Dude, nature is bizarre, and frequently ignores good Christian morals. As you’re the only one trying to use nature to determine proper morality, this is only a problem for your argument.

Belphegor wrote:I believe (as I stated WAY earlier) that marriage should be de-legalized.

It’s a legal contract. It has an effect on tax and welfare benefits. Courts can be needed to determine property splits and child access in the event of divorce. It cannot be removed from legal considerations.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Because the legal argument uses the same tools. That is the whole point of my posts. Not to say "You are wrong" but to say "the argument is flawed". Gay marriage is not a bomb that will blow up America! But the argument that "it is natural" applies to pedophiles too. The argument that it is "only one law in the way" of gay marriage applies to pedophiles too. The argument that "Love is all you need" applies to pedophiles too. It is the flawed arguments that I am combating.

But you’re the only one talking about ‘natural’. It’s an argument you introduced so you could tell everyone how it was flawed.

The rest of us are talking about mature, consenting adults being allowed to do something every other mature, consenting adult can already do; marry the one they love.

Hey Sebster.
I am sorry to have brought in the "natural" part of the argument. That was from reading comments of various news/opinion articles. It was related to the argument of "Choice" to be gay. Some said it was not a choice, but a part of their hormonal make up since birth. Other said it was a choice and thus not qualifying for the "minority" status afforded to say African Americans.

Again, I was trying to look at the argument as a whole. But the conversation kinda stuck to that one part.

My point (lost in the thread) was one of advice, really. I am not saying the subject matter was flawed, only the argument being made. If any one group wants to make a point with another group, it needs a solid presentation. My point is that the presentation on gay marriage is currently weak and needs a better argument. That's all.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Hey Sebster.
I am sorry to have brought in the "natural" part of the argument. That was from reading comments of various news/opinion articles. It was related to the argument of "Choice" to be gay. Some said it was not a choice, but a part of their hormonal make up since birth. Other said it was a choice and thus not qualifying for the "minority" status afforded to say African Americans.

Again, I was trying to look at the argument as a whole. But the conversation kinda stuck to that one part.

My point (lost in the thread) was one of advice, really. I am not saying the subject matter was flawed, only the argument being made. If any one group wants to make a point with another group, it needs a solid presentation. My point is that the presentation on gay marriage is currently weak and needs a better argument. That's all.

That's fine, but the only argument here is that a consenting adult should able to marry the person they love. Is there anything you can logically deduce that's wrong with that statement?

As a piece of advice for yourself, I'd recommend against opening the choice/not a choice thing, even if you're doing it with the friendliest of intentions. A lot of gay people really dislike the assumption that it's a choice, because they can only be attracted to who they're attracted to. Other gay people dislike something very personal to them being discussed like lab rats. It doesn't worry me, but I'm not gay, and doesn't seem to have bothered anyone else here on that level... it's just for future reference.

No, being gay is a choice- just like being straight is.

A multitude of factors, genetic, societal, and personal, is what shapes a persons sexuality. First off, the biggest problem is that you think sexuality is some sort of a Gay/NotGay switch. Most behaviorists believe (and studies back this) their is a wide spectrum of sexualities, interests, and preferences, and it is silly and, simply put, stupid to try to make a complex issue into a binary choice.

Also, MARRYING THE ONE YOU LOVE ISN'T ONLY ABOUT SEX. Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to have homosexual relationships (or straight ones, for that matter). It is about two consenting adults wanting to have a long-term relationship that is viewed as legitimate in the eyes of the law.

Gen Lee, how about you give us a decent reason to be AGAINST gay marriage?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

2- You are right. Humans are not animals.

We 're not ? I think we are. Smarter ( in some ways) and the most dominant but we are animals nevertheless. Sure there's the odd person i know who I'm convinced is a vegatable but that's life I guess.

In nature, most mammals have a dominate male that is the sole breeder with a herd/troop/school/pride/etc. of females.

Which isn't marriage is it then ?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Actually the Constitution doesn't say anything about a separation of church and state either...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

1. no state religion
2. no interference with religion

in essence protection of religion FROM the state.

Which is absolutely tacit to the separation of church and state. After all, if the state entertains a religious line of argumentation it is interfering in the practice of all other religions by sanctioning the practices of one of them.

Incorrect and a total subversion of the intent, which was to protect religion and the free exercise thereof, NOT protect the government or separate it from religion.

As long as marriage confers legal rights on the partners it has to be treated as a form of contract defined and arbitrated by law.

Although religious ceremonies are good, if the state is a secular state then religion can't be the arbiter of marriage.

If marriage does not confer any legal rights, there isn't any point having it. Let anyone call themself married if they like. It's as important as people calling themselves Jedi.

Since marriage does confer legal rights on the participants, the question is whether it is fair to discriminate against particular groups and prevent them from enjoying the rights of marriage.

The two key reasons for discriminating against rights for certain groups are:

1. Because they do not have the understanding to properly exercise the rights. This is why children and animals are not allowed to marry.

2. Because exercising these rights would cause harm to the body politic in general. This is why felons are not allowed to possess firearms or enter certain trades and professions.

Sure it can Killkrazy, and I say this as the religious part is not recognized in Mexico (or at least wasn’t for a while after the revolution). It was civil with a ceremony being a “frill.”

-The government confers a package of rights-property/contract/visitation. This may be conferred onto any couple that are legally competent.

-Various religions can have reiligous weddings, and have th4e rights to restrict who they will and will not marry. Otherwise the couple can just sya they are hitched, married, partners, stuck with each other.

The rights are conferred via the government. The title is conferred by the people themselves. That’s effectively how it is now , just separating away the concept of marriage to one of partnership.

But remember, goats are not legally competent…

Mekniakal wrote:

Gen Lee, how about you give us a decent reason to be AGAINST gay marriage?

Let me tell you my personal belief on the matter. This is not fact, just my belief.

I think a homosexual couple should be entitled to exactly the same rights as marriage in every legal way.
I think churches and business owned by churches (say Catholic Hospitals) should be allowed to work within their beliefs.
I think the approach of "Gay marriage will happen wither you like it or not" is an attack on many religious beliefs.
I think a homosexual person is just that- A Person. People should have freedom and rights.
I think marriage between man and woman is an institution and should not be changed.
I think Civil Unions NEED to be exactly the same legally as marriage (even if the wording is exactly the same cut & paste as the wording for marriage).

In all honesty, I do not know how Civil unions are currently inferior to current marriage (not that they aren’t/t, I just don’t know.) Can anyone enlighten me?

AFAIK


--Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

Which include

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

Now, I'm pretty certain that much/some of this can be covered through lawyers etc. But, and I'm not that certain about US legal costs I freely confess, I@m certain that is more expensive than a marriage license.

Can laws be changed to make civil unions recognized nationally? AS for the other items, can a proposition be made to give those rights to civil unions?

I was under the impression that civil unions in CA gave a fair bit of the Non-Federal issues on that list. I might be misinformed. But that was my understanding.

*pleads the fifth*

that's going off of some earlier google research.

As to how hard it is to affect a national change I'll bow here to those with more...hell any, knowledge in that area.

*grumbles* If you'd just do things nationally like a real country *

reds8n wrote:
*grumbles* If you'd just do things nationally like a real country *

No thanks. I'd miss my bail out the governor and find the money scandals like any good
Illinoisan would.

When I told my father that I was engaged, he exclaimed, "It's not too late to join the Marines!"

Great advice to anyone contemplating marriage (straight or otherwise).

It's easier to be in the military during wartime than to be married!

reds8n wrote:
*grumbles* If you'd just do things nationally like a real country *

Hahaha!
We are a bit of a mess, it is true. Originally we were supposed to be something more like Greek City-States, but evolved into a more federal government.
But all nations have their "issues".

utan wrote:When I told my father that I was engaged, he exclaimed, "It's not too late to join the Marines!"

Great advice to anyone contemplating marriage (straight or otherwise).

It's easier to be in the military during wartime than to be married!

Safer too...

Frazzled wrote:Sure it can Killkrazy, and I say this as the religious part is not recognized in Mexico (or at least wasn’t for a while after the revolution). It was civil with a ceremony being a “frill.”

-The government confers a package of rights-property/contract/visitation. This may be conferred onto any couple that are legally competent.

-Various religions can have reiligous weddings, and have th4e rights to restrict who they will and will not marry. Otherwise the couple can just sya they are hitched, married, partners, stuck with each other.

The rights are conferred via the government. The title is conferred by the people themselves. That’s effectively how it is now , just separating away the concept of marriage to one of partnership.

Except it isn't how it is right now. With prop 8 and similar pieces of legislation gay people can't access the same legal constructs as straight people. That's kind of the point of what people have been arguing.

But remember, goats are not legally competent…

You haven't met the right goat.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sure it can Killkrazy, and I say this as the religious part is not recognized in Mexico (or at least wasn’t for a while after the revolution). It was civil with a ceremony being a “frill.”

-The government confers a package of rights-property/contract/visitation. This may be conferred onto any couple that are legally competent.

-Various religions can have reiligous weddings, and have th4e rights to restrict who they will and will not marry. Otherwise the couple can just sya they are hitched, married, partners, stuck with each other.

The rights are conferred via the government. The title is conferred by the people themselves. That’s effectively how it is now , just separating away the concept of marriage to one of partnership.

Except it isn't how it is right now. With prop 8 and similar pieces of legislation gay people can't access the same legal constructs as straight people. That's kind of the point of what people have been arguing.

1. Thats my point about what Gov should be instructed by the people to do. I'm not arguing otherwise Sebster baby. Reminder-don't misperceive where I actually stand on this topic.
2. Again reference that glorious constitution discussion, which was used to strike down racial laws in the past (this was a term for them but I'm not going to research those horrors).

Frazzled wrote:
Incorrect and a total subversion of the intent, which was to protect religion and the free exercise thereof, NOT protect the government or separate it from religion.

Protecting religion from the government is the same protecting the government from religion. After all, as soon as the state writes into law anything based upon a religious justification it has necessarily discriminated against any and all similar justification which have been, or will be, denied.

As for intent: Are you familiar with Jefferson's letter in which he used the line 'a wall of separation between church and state"? Not that I'm arguing the intent specifically, as it is completely irrelevant to any and all discussion of the law's application, but to say that any Constitutional clause has a clear intent at all is simple foolish.

dogma wrote:
Protecting religion from the government is the same protecting the government from religion.

No its not. The difference is basic.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:
Protecting religion from the government is the same protecting the government from religion.

No its not. The difference is basic.

Then why can't you substantiate it without simply rejecting my assertion?

Because: 1) its a straightforward view-ie it would have said that; 2) juggling multiple arguments; 3) eating; 4) that whole work thing rearing its ugle head occasionally.

Frazzled wrote:Because: 1) its a straightforward view-ie it would have said that.

See, here's the issue. As soon as religion is utilized as a justification for the creation of a law it becomes a part of the state, and thereby necessarily discriminatory against all other religions. Both corrupting the state, and its ability to remain neutral with respect to any other faith.

Frazzled wrote:1. Thats my point about what Gov should be instructed by the people to do. I'm not arguing otherwise Sebster baby. Reminder-don't misperceive where I actually stand on this topic.
2. Again reference that glorious constitution discussion, which was used to strike down racial laws in the past (this was a term for them but I'm not going to research those horrors).

So you're in favour of prop-8 because they protect a word, 'marriage', and figure things like homosexual rights will sort themselves out down the line?