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.

Because Romney thinks marriage should be one-man-one-woman, and is generally against gay marriage?

source
Romney was a leading voice against gay marriage as Massachusetts governor. The courts legalized gay marriage in the state during his tenure, but he supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

After gay marriage became legal, Romney sought to enforce a statute banning state officials from marrying gay couples from other states. In a speech to conservatives last winter, Romney touted that move, saying he prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."

Romney said Wednesday he supports limiting benefits for same-sex couples.

"I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he told the Fox TV station in Denver. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS TOTALLY COOL RITE GUYZ?

(except not really equal)

biccat wrote:The key difference is Obama is probably lying.

And your evidence for this is?

Or, perhaps more accurately, what makes you think that Romney is less politically opportunistic than Obama?

Medium of Death wrote:The UK doesn't have Gay Marriage. It has a Civil Partnership which is pretty much the same thing.

Would Civil Partnership not go down better in the States? It's not got Marriage in the Title, but it's pretty much the same thing.

Surely all the 'Sanctity of Marriage' types would back down if it wasn't technically a Marriage?

Maybe marginally better, but not by much. You gotta understand a huge portion of America is still opposed to even recognizing that homosexuals have the right to exist. Granted they are a minority (not a small minority mind you) but they're very loud, politically powerful and well motivated to vote.

Generally speaking if you're from Europe and asking yourself "Why doesn't the US just...?" in relations to human rights, equality or social justice issue you really have to put yourself in the mindset of "How well would this have gone over here, 50 years ago?"

biccat wrote:The key difference is Obama is probably lying.

This.

It's unfortunate that the concept of Civil Partnership hasn't gone down well in the States. It's definitely addresses two important points of the whole debate.

Gay couples getting equal rights.

Religions not being stepped on.

At the end of the day Marriage means so many things to many people, if you can get the rights to be acknowledged as a couple surely that is the ultimate goal? Marriage doesn't mean anything (in practical terms) if it's not recorded by the State surely? They can put on whatever ceremony they want to celebrate it. Hell, i'm sure there are even pro gay religious leaders that would bless the ceremony for them if they wanted.

The whole 'all or nothing' stance for gay marriage isn't really going to get anybody anywhere. It's a shame Obama didn't advocate Civil Partnerships.

purplefood wrote:

biccat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Who freaking cares who he alienates? Humanity needs this. Stop arguing numbers when people are more important.

Because the President did this for political reasons, so it should be analyzed under the political microscope.

He's trending left 6 months before the election, which is not a winning strategy.

I thought trending left ever in America wasn't a winning strategy...

If you listen to the media, everything is bad for Democrats.

streamdragon wrote:Because Romney thinks marriage should be one-man-one-woman, and is generally against gay marriage?

source
Romney was a leading voice against gay marriage as Massachusetts governor. The courts legalized gay marriage in the state during his tenure, but he supported a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

After gay marriage became legal, Romney sought to enforce a statute banning state officials from marrying gay couples from other states. In a speech to conservatives last winter, Romney touted that move, saying he prevented Massachusetts from becoming the "Las Vegas of gay marriage."

Romney said Wednesday he supports limiting benefits for same-sex couples.

"I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name," he told the Fox TV station in Denver. "My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not."

SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS TOTALLY COOL RITE GUYZ?

(except not really equal)

My cousin said the same thing "I think they should have all the benefits of marriage, just not be called marriage"
Im like "Then why not call it marriage"
I have always beleived this, If your god is someone who wants to cause pain to others and not let love prosper, that is no god i want to worship.

Medium of Death wrote:It's unfortunate that the concept of Civil Partnership hasn't gone down well in the States. It's definitely addresses two important points of the whole debate.
Gay couples getting equal rights.
Religions not being stepped on.
At the end of the day Marriage means so many things to many people, if you can get the rights to be acknowledged as a couple surely that is the ultimate goal? Marriage doesn't mean anything (in practical terms) if it's not recorded by the State surely? They can put on whatever ceremony they want to celebrate it. Hell, i'm sure there are even pro gay religious leaders that would bless the ceremony for them if they wanted.
The whole 'all or nothing' stance for gay marriage isn't really going to get anybody anywhere. It's a shame Obama didn't advocate Civil Partnerships.

The moment the government provides certain benefits for marriage, then the issue is no longer what "marriage means to people". It's what marriage means in the face of the law. Separate but equal is not, will never be and should not have ever been, an acceptable position. This is and should be an all or nothing match in that regard.

Every time this arguement comes up the same tired old rhetoric comes out. There is literally no reason that gay people should not be allowed to be married, with all the privileges and rights thereto. None. No reason. If gay people getting married suddenly somehow makes your own marriage less meaningful, I'm forced to wonder what you based its value on in the first place. Clearly it's not being based on the love between two people, because if it was, you'd understand why homosexual people fight so hard for marriage; because they love someone.

I am white and my wife is black, it is crazy that not that long ago in history we would not have been able to marry. Heck, there are still people giving us dirty looks and some churches are still teaching that the races should not intermarry.

I gotta get out of the south sometime...

streamdragon wrote:Every time this arguement comes up the same tired old rhetoric comes out. There is literally no reason that gay people should not be allowed to be married, with all the privileges and rights thereto. None. No reason.

Governments can prefer certain relationships over others. I get treated differently because I decided to get married.

My neighbor, who didn't marry his SO, doesn't get treated differently, despite cohabitating and being in a long term relationship.

My other neighbor is a pair of roommates sharing a house while they go to college. They also don't get treated differently.

Another is a father living with his daughter, but they have a different set of benefits.

The government has decided that one type of relationship should receive benefits (for a variety of reasons), but has not extended those to other types of similarly situated relationships. There is nothing wrong with these types of determinations, and there is nothing wrong with determining that other types of relationships shouldn't receive benefits as well.

You are describing differences based on the type of relationship:

Marriage
Non-married
Roommates
Father-Daughter


This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.

Imagine, instead, that the government is passing laws saying that certain groups can't be roommates. Or that certain groups can't have children. Then you might be at least remotely in the right ballpark.

streamdragon wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.

No, those are relationships that the government does not confer special favor upon. Big difference.

streamdragon wrote:Imagine, instead, that the government is passing laws saying that certain groups can't be roommates. Or that certain groups can't have children. Then you might be at least remotely in the right ballpark.

I wasn't aware that the government had passed laws saying that gays can't marry.

What they say is that the government won't recognize as marriage unions between same-sex couples. I've worked for a number of years with a woman who considers herself married, even if it's not recognized in this state. We all refer to her SO as her wife.

She has yet to be arrested.

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.

No, those are relationships that the government does not confer special favor upon. Big difference.

Correct for non-married SOs (excepting, of course, states with common law marriage) and for roommates, but incorrect for father-daughter, which provides tax breaks and other benefits. But you knew that.

biccat wrote:I wasn't aware that the government had passed laws saying that gays can't marry.

What they say is that the government won't recognize as marriage unions between same-sex couples. I've worked for a number of years with a woman who considers herself married, even if it's not recognized in this state. We all refer to her SO as her wife.

She has yet to be arrested.

And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.

But you knew that also.

From a hospital standpoint, she is just a woman that knows him.

streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.

This part of the argument has always interested me. Do homosexual couples lack the ability to generate wills, living wills, and powers of attorney? If so, what limits their capability? If not, why couldn't they address these issues if they chose to do so using currently available instruments?

So separate and not equal again?

streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.

You're right.

Neither do roommates. Or cohabitating non-married couples. Or a number of other relationships.

The government favors certain relationships and grants them certain rights. Marriage is simply another one of those relationships.

biccat wrote:The government has decided that one type of relationship should receive benefits (for a variety of reasons), but has not extended those to other types of similarly situated relationships. There is nothing wrong with these types of determinations, and there is nothing wrong with determining that other types of relationships shouldn't receive benefits as well.

But the benefits you refer to in those cases are typically purely economic, tax-related type benefits, yes? None of the rationales for those discriminators are couched in quasireligious, moral based reasons?

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:And yet she has no legal standing with that. If her SO were to be hurt, she would have no visitation rights, no say in medical care, and ultimately no right to anything involved.

You're right.

Neither do roommates. Or cohabitating non-married couples. Or a number of other relationships.

The government favors certain relationships and grants them certain rights. Marriage is simply another one of those relationships.

That only a select group of people get to participate in.

d-usa wrote:That only a select group of people get to participate in.

By golly, you're right! It's almost like the government favors certain relationships while disfavoring others. If only some brilliant mind had said that already...

Ouze wrote:But the benefits you refer to in those cases are typically purely economic, tax-related type benefits, yes? None of the rationales for those discriminators are couched in quasireligious, moral based reasons?

Sure. But it doesn't matter. There is at least a rational basis for government favoring heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages; and that rational basis doesn't exist for other types of discrimination (e.g. anti-miscegenation laws).

d-usa wrote:So separate and not equal again?

Not sure what you mean, I have all those documents to ensure my intent is met and I've been married to my wife for over 20 years. She has those documents too. We also have the 'in case we both get capped' documents.

Nothing 'separate but equal' when the EXACT SAME protections and instruments can be used by everyone.

If the intent is SO gets to make medical decisions, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today. If they want to leave their wordly goods and cash to their SO, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today.

So can the hetero couples that don't get married. They have THE SAME protections IF they take advantage of them. To NOT take advantage of these instruments is frankly asinine if you are concerned about the effects of not having done so.

streamdragon wrote:

biccat wrote:

streamdragon wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation, as the government is not dictating who is allowed to be in any of those relationships, EXCEPT marriage.

No, those are relationships that the government does not confer special favor upon. Big difference.

Correct for non-married SOs (excepting, of course, states with common law marriage) and for roommates, but incorrect for father-daughter, which provides tax breaks and other benefits. But you knew that.

A more direct analogy would be conferring benefits to men raising female children, but not extending the same benefits to men raising male children.

That said, biccat is right that the state can favor certain relationships over others, the problem is that such a point doesn't actually address whether or not there is good reason to do so in the case of same-sex marriage. Its a weak attempt at deflection.

biccat wrote:
Sure. But it doesn't matter. There is at least a rational basis for government favoring heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages; and that rational basis doesn't exist for other types of discrimination (e.g. anti-miscegenation laws).

Miscegenation lead directly to a great deal of violence and conflict, making it illegal in the interests of dissuading people from such behavior is rational if the desire is to reduce the prevalence of miscegenation related violence and conflict. This rationale was eventually invalidated by civil unrest that followed from the CRM, causing a shift in policy.

One can develop a rational basis for essentially any form of favoritism so the presence of that alone is irrelevant, the question is whether or not that rational basis is in consistence with the state's interest as inclusive of the wishes of the body politic. Viewed in this sense the only rational basis the state could have refusing to recognize homosexual marriage is popular sentiment, indicating that as support for same-sex marriage increases, the rational basis will cease to exist much as it did regarding miscegenation.

CptJake wrote:

d-usa wrote:So separate and not equal again?

Not sure what you mean, I have all those documents to ensure my intent is met and I've been married to my wife for over 20 years. She has those documents too. We also have the 'in case we both get capped' documents.

Nothing 'separate but equal' when the EXACT SAME protections and instruments can be used by everyone.

If the intent is SO gets to make medical decisions, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today. If they want to leave their wordly goods and cash to their SO, THEY CAN DO SO. Right now. Today.

So can the hetero couples that don't get married. They have THE SAME protections IF they take advantage of them. To NOT take advantage of these instruments is frankly asinine if you are concerned about the effects of not having done so.

Difference being: you can do it, and if you don't you are still married which gives you many rights.

They have to do it, and if they don't they are fethed.

Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.

Give me a rational reason why Polygamy would follow after Gay Marriage.

Try it, as an exercise.

I thought that the logical conclusion to gay marriage was pedophiles marrying six year olds and grandpas marrying goats?

Because, The argument "People should be with who they want" doesnt just include same sex couples, it should include other couples as well. If we keep the whole "Govt out of our love lives" angle then why shuld polygamy be legal
That's the best. I could counter with how polygamy tends to hurt women in the relationship and relegate them to breeding machines.

d-usa wrote:I thought that the logical conclusion to gay marriage was pedophiles marrying six year olds and grandpas marrying goats?

No, first Polygamy, then Pederasty, then Bestiality.

Focus, d-usa, Focus!

hotsauceman1 wrote:Ok question. If we allow gay marriage, will polygamy follow.
I find that arguement ALOT, but i cant for the life of me find a counter argument that doesn't use my own statements against me.

In time. All it needs is a few good lawsuits and a special interest.

Chowderhead wrote:

d-usa wrote:I thought that the logical conclusion to gay marriage was pedophiles marrying six year olds and grandpas marrying goats?

No, first Polygamy, then Pederasty, then Bestiality.

Focus, d-usa, Focus!

When does Lars get to marry his doll?