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.

 d-usa wrote:
I swear, this country is going to be destroyed by the two camps of "the government is useless, burn it to the ground" and "we need more government, build more more more".

There is a big difference between limited government and no government.

One of the other flaws I see in your reasoning is the assumption that your documents in State A wont be recognized in state B. While there are differences in laws, most legal documents are easily transferable. When it comes to property ownership, rights of a guardian or a will and testament, it's a non-issue. When you move from state to state you are required to update your driver's license, insurance and a load of other information. When you have something like a marriage certificate, those types of things are not requested almost ever. The only time i've had my marriage certificate be produced after the wedding was when I was living out of state. I placed a call to the county clerk, they mailed me a certified copy and I mailed them a check for $10. BFD.. Considering how rare of an occurrence it is for people to move from state to state, how rarely you need to produce the documents AND how easy it is to produce those documents, I hardly see why it's necessary to bring it up. Let alone be a valid defense of government regulation of marriage.

There are basically 2 sides to this debate.. Yes to gay marriage and No to gay marriage. In my mind, neither option is actually a defense of liberty.

dereksatkinson wrote:

One of the other flaws I see in your reasoning is the assumption that your documents in State A wont be recognized in state B. While there are differences in laws, most legal documents are easily transferable. When it comes to property ownership, rights of a guardian or a will and testament, it's a non-issue. When you move from state to state you are required to update your driver's license, insurance and a load of other information. When you have something like a marriage certificate, those types of things are not requested almost ever. The only time i've had my marriage certificate be produced after the wedding was when I was living out of state. I placed a call to the county clerk, they mailed me a certified copy and I mailed them a check for $10. BFD.. Considering how rare of an occurrence it is for people to move from state to state, how rarely you need to produce the documents AND how easy it is to produce those documents, I hardly see why it's necessary to bring it up. Let alone be a valid defense of government regulation of marriage.

Not always... I was in the military for 10 years, and never once updated my license. Sure, my insurance I changed to my current address, but that's not the same thing at all.

And Power of Attorney really is a specialized state by state thing. The states are required to recognize a military POA, but when I had to do one a couple months ago, I had to have it redone with "correct" information. Sure, many states will "easily" allow you to move your legal documentation over to their system, but you're gonna have to pay for it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not always... I was in the military for 10 years, and never once updated my license. Sure, my insurance I changed to my current address, but that's not the same thing at all.

Because you were living on base? Normally, you have to update your information if you move state to state. If you were pulled over and your driver's license was from the State of Texas and your insurance had a different address in the state of Oregon, you'd be getting a ticket.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And Power of Attorney really is a specialized state by state thing. The states are required to recognize a military POA, but when I had to do one a couple months ago, I had to have it redone with "correct" information. Sure, many states will "easily" allow you to move your legal documentation over to their system, but you're gonna have to pay for it.

So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes? how many times do you need to show a marriage cert? It's ludicrous that this is a sticking point.

dereksatkinson wrote:

So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes?

If you want it to do the same thing as a marriage certificate? You need to do as many as it takes to cover you 24/7 your entire life together in every state you will ever physically be located in even if you are just driving through it.

I might never need it, but if I have an Oklahoma DPOA and I'm visiting my parents in Illinois and driving through Missouri I would need three DPOAs to cover the possibility of getting sick or getting into an accident in all three of those states. Four if I want to visit my brother who lives just across the state line in Indiana.

Or, you know, one single marriage certificate.

Edit: instead of complaining that people don't really need X number of DPOAs or pay an attorney to draft one single giant form that could cover every possible state, why don't you tell us what the benefit would be of no longer having a marriage certificate issued by the states.

dereksatkinson wrote:

If the right and left are mostly the same then how come they have different economic philosophies (trickle down and Keynesian economics) and are in so much disagreement with each other? Every time I bring this up no one ever challenges me on it.

 Cheesecat wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

If the right and left are mostly the same then how come they have different economic philosophies (trickle down and Keynesian economics) and are in so much disagreement with each other? Every time I bring this up no one ever challenges me on it.

some would say that left and right are the same because they believe in a state. the same people would normally go on to say that a state is then the cause of lack-of-liberty.

most of these people should go and live in liberia or somalia and enjoy the freedom afforded by a lack of state.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Not always... I was in the military for 10 years, and never once updated my license. Sure, my insurance I changed to my current address, but that's not the same thing at all.

Because you were living on base? Normally, you have to update your information if you move state to state. If you were pulled over and your driver's license was from the State of Texas and your insurance had a different address in the state of Oregon, you'd be getting a ticket.

Nope, it's a federal law that allows me to retain my "Home of Record" and thus, my home state drivers' license. Most police, if they are near the military towns are used to this. I recently got pulled over in Utah (where there is little to no military presence) and the cop asked about the variations (the license was one state, my registration had one address and my insurance showed another address in the same state as registration, lol), but ultimately did not give me a ticket since I was in the right (well, except the reason I got pulled over in the first place).

It really is a simple as, "it's a military thing". Even military spouses do not have to change their drivers licenses and whatnot when they move. The only thing they'd have to change is any form of professional license (ie. Real Estate, Insurance Producers, etc)

dereksatkinson wrote:
A prude conforms significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards.

Or, instead of nitpicking the definition, you could use the more common one: "a person who is easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people". Which pretty clearly applies to you, you're offended by homosexuality even though other people aren't. And yes, 60% of the US agrees with you, but the US is way behind on this.

The biggest problem I see with the way gay rights are being trumpeted is that there is way too much of an effort towards having homosexuality "accepted". It's the wrong battle to fight and one which you will never see won.

Oh, it's a battle that should be fought and will be won, because the opposition to homosexuality is based on stupid reasons. What you're saying here is the equivalent of insisting that racists should be left alone with their racist beliefs as long as they aren't passing laws to enforce their racism. And that's just wrong, tolerance of private beliefs has its limits.

PS: I'm still waiting to see your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so".

 Frazzled wrote:
Signed, a Dad, just a Dad.

I think this is the best post I've ever read of yours.

 Frazzled wrote:
Signed, a Dad, just a Dad.

Excellent post Frazz.

The honor, is to serve.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Signed, a Dad, just a Dad.

I think this is the best post I've ever read of yours.

I have to agree. Frazzled, you've won the thread. *tips hat*

I think much of it is held over from old world values.

The primary concern governing marriage for thousands of years has been to produce as many male heirs as possible. This preserves the family lineage and holdings. A gay male heir is less likely to produce offspring so in many cases would be almost the same as having them born a female. Being unable to bear children was generally regarded as being highly shameful as it meant that the married couple was unable to fulfill their duty in preserving the family line and continue the succession of property and land. (This occurs almost all cultures at that time with the exception of rare matrilineal societies).

While a gay male or female could potentially produce offspring, it would likely be at a far lower rate as the act would be done out of obligation, and time they spent with their gay lovers was time that it wasn't spent in partnership that would otherwise produce offspring.

Also in most medieval cultures the sate and religion were basically one body, kings were ordained by the religion and so the sate was headed by a religious figure. The King of England was both head of state but also head of the church of England. Laws were largely based on religious principals and even though we are in modern states most of our legal systems are based on older law and has roots in Abrahamic laws. So marriage law was based upon a combination of religious tradition and law for governing land ownership.

During the medieval period and even late into the early modern age landownership and succession was paramount concern in marital status. If you did not own land you had no rights or value. This only began to change when modern nations were created around 200 years ago where everyone now has rights. Marriage primarily for love is also a concept that is relatively new, in the old world it was a secondary concern that came after the concerns of lineage and land rights. In terms of history and culture our modern society has evolved in a very short period of time still and many of our customs still hold over from the old world ideals.

Now that all men are in effect equal and class division has been removed the concept of landholdings and marriage aren't as important as they once were, people are typically marrying for love and children are not such a high priority, however many still view marriage as shaped by the traditional model of one man and one woman as that is how both religion and the state have defined it for thousands of years as it was intended to produce a maximum of legit offspring.

Society is very slow to adapt and it usually takes several generations before changes fully take root. We're still feeling ripple effects from the civil rights era and that was decades ago. Something that radically redefines what families are perceived to be, that's going to take a while to settle in as well.

 d-usa wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes?

If you want it to do the same thing as a marriage certificate? You need to do as many as it takes to cover you 24/7 your entire life together in every state you will ever physically be located in even if you are just driving through it.

I might never need it, but if I have an Oklahoma DPOA and I'm visiting my parents in Illinois and driving through Missouri I would need three DPOAs to cover the possibility of getting sick or getting into an accident in all three of those states. Four if I want to visit my brother who lives just across the state line in Indiana.

Or, you know, one single marriage certificate.

Edit: instead of complaining that people don't really need X number of DPOAs or pay an attorney to draft one single giant form that could cover every possible state, why don't you tell us what the benefit would be of no longer having a marriage certificate issued by the states.

You don't need a birth certificate for every state you travel through. If you go to the hospital (and actually pay your bills) you need insurance and a driver's license. So much of what you wrote is just made up and doesn't really address my points.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

So your objection to my stance is a potential $10 fee for providing proof of documentation you would very rarely need? How many power of attorney forms does the average person need to do in their lifetimes?

If you want it to do the same thing as a marriage certificate? You need to do as many as it takes to cover you 24/7 your entire life together in every state you will ever physically be located in even if you are just driving through it.

I might never need it, but if I have an Oklahoma DPOA and I'm visiting my parents in Illinois and driving through Missouri I would need three DPOAs to cover the possibility of getting sick or getting into an accident in all three of those states. Four if I want to visit my brother who lives just across the state line in Indiana.

Or, you know, one single marriage certificate.

Edit: instead of complaining that people don't really need X number of DPOAs or pay an attorney to draft one single giant form that could cover every possible state, why don't you tell us what the benefit would be of no longer having a marriage certificate issued by the states.

You don't need a birth certificate for every state you travel through. If you go to the hospital (and actually pay your bills) you need insurance and a driver's license. So much of what you wrote is just made up and doesn't really address my points.

Birth Certificates have nothing to do with it, and paying your hospital bills have nothing to do with it. Both are 100% completely irrelevant when it comes to making medical decisions for your "spouse" after getting rid of any state sanctioned proof that you are in fact married. What I wrote is also not made up. It actually is a 100% factual example of what happens when you get rid of marriage and it is just one example of the problems it would create. I know this because this is the field both I and my wife work in, and we assisted my in-laws in filing all these papers because they don't want to actually be married but want to be able to make medical decisions for each other.


Absent any form of state recognized marriage, if you and your spouse travel or visit any state you will be required to have DPOAs for every single state if you want to be able to make decisions for your spouse in case there is an accident or sudden illness that lands you in the hospital.

So a trip starting in Oklahoma and ending in Indiana crossing Illinois and Missouri will require us to have 8 separate DPOAs for each other so that we can make medical decisions in case something happens. And that is the solution put forth by the "we don't need no government to tell us we are married" folks. They will flat out tell you that there is nothing in a marriage certificate that you couldn't accomplish with some Power of Attorneys and contracts.

It's also three posts in a row from you saying "state sanctioned marriage is stupid" and "you don't know what you are talking about" and not a single post answering "what is so wrong about a state issued marriage license that we need to get rid of it and replace it with a highly fragmented system of private contracts and power or attorneys".

 Peregrine wrote:
Or, instead of nitpicking the definition, you could use the more common one: "a person who is easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people". Which pretty clearly applies to you, you're offended by homosexuality even though other people aren't. And yes, 60% of the US agrees with you, but the US is way behind on this.

I never said homosexuality offended me. You guys seriously have reading comprehension issues.. Take the time to actually read this before commenting.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Morality_and_ethics

Oh, it's a battle that should be fought and will be won, because the opposition to homosexuality is based on stupid reasons. What you're saying here is the equivalent of insisting that racists should be left alone with their racist beliefs as long as they aren't passing laws to enforce their racism. And that's just wrong, tolerance of private beliefs has its limits.

PS: I'm still waiting to see your explanation for how homosexuality is immoral, without resorting to "because Jesus said so".

Again.. I've never once brought religion into this discussion. You need to learn the difference between descriptive and normative morality. I've been very clear which side of the fence i'm on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

The most cogent secular arguments I've heard are that gay marriage reflects a normalization of deviancy, depresses the birthrate especially among upper classes, leads to the creation of gay ghettos in the arts like theater where straight men need not apply, and that the entire push is a smokescreen to further immasculate and vilify traditional white straight men.

Of those I agree with one, but don't think it is convincing enough to continue to withhold marriage rights from the gays.

 Silverthorne wrote:
The most cogent secular arguments I've heard are that gay marriage reflects a normalization of deviancy, depresses the birthrate especially among upper classes, leads to the creation of gay ghettos in the arts like theater where straight men need not apply, and that the entire push is a smokescreen to further immasculate and vilify traditional white straight men.

Of those I agree with one, but don't think it is convincing enough to continue to withhold marriage rights from the gays.

Meh...

At the end of the day... What business does anyone have in objecting SSM????

I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.

 whembly wrote:
I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.

I have a difficult time fathoming the mindset that would want to eliminate "no fault divorce". It's the very pinnacle of government intrusion into a private union.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying you, Whembly have argued in favor of it.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I proffer that No Fault Divorces is the true enemy of the "The Institution of Marriage".... Not gay marriage.

I have a difficult time fathoming the mindset that would want to eliminate "no fault divorce". It's the very pinnacle of government intrusion into a private union.

Edit: to be clear, I'm not saying you, Whembly have argued in favor of it.

Lol... I'm actually very conflicted. There's no real solution to be honest, other than that the current laws are truly more favorable towards the children. Which it's where it should be....

On the flip side through... If your spouse cheated on you... You should'nt get fething half of everything. feth no... And if you wanted full custody... Your spouse infidelity should absolutely be a factor in the divorce.(it's not tho)

That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.

That's fricking awesome!

 whembly wrote:

That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.

That's fricking awesome!

Sounds more like harassment.

 whembly wrote:
That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.

Yeah... it's always nice to see someone taking the high road...

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.

Yeah... it's always nice to see someone taking the high road...

Yup.

dereksatkinson wrote:
2 points..

A prude conforms significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards.

Not just someone who conforms personally, but wants others to conform to those standards as well. Which is exactly what you are doing.

As for the part i highlighted.. If you had taken my comments in context, you would realize that I am not opposed to gay marriage. If homosexuals want to get married, great. It doesn't matter if I believe what they are doing is immoral. Regardless of how I feel, the state should not be regulating marriage in any way shape or form.

As long as marriage has some kind of legal significance, then your position can’t exist. And marriage needs to have some kind of legal significance, unless you want the social network to treat a single mother renting a room off a doctor the exact same as it treats a mother who just married and moved in with a doctor.

If the government can grant the right to marriage then they can take that right away. What happens in a couple years when we have a new attorney general?

Nothing. People and especially politicians don’t go running back in to re-fight a battle they just lost, where the numbers for their position are only getting weaker.

The biggest problem I see with the way gay rights are being trumpeted is that there is way too much of an effort towards having homosexuality "accepted". It's the wrong battle to fight and one which you will never see won. Too many people have beliefs that are opposed to it.

You’re trying to make perfect the enemy of the good. That is, by setting up a false position in which success is only when every single person accepts homosexuality, you’re ignoring all the good that comes out of any increase in acceptance. Life for homosexual people is much, much better than it was a generation ago. It’s much, much better than it was a decade ago. That is real, terrific progress. And every further step taken towards increasing acceptance is good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dereksatkinson wrote:
There are basically 2 sides to this debate.. Yes to gay marriage and No to gay marriage. In my mind, neither option is actually a defense of liberty.

There are other issues in society than liberty.

In this case the issue is equal treatment before the law. Gay marriage means more people are treated equally regardless of sexual orientation, while opposition to gay marriage seeks to deny that equal treatment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Lol... I'm actually very conflicted. There's no real solution to be honest, other than that the current laws are truly more favorable towards the children. Which it's where it should be....

On the flip side through... If your spouse cheated on you... You should'nt get fething half of everything. feth no... And if you wanted full custody... Your spouse infidelity should absolutely be a factor in the divorce.(it's not tho)

I don't know. I mean, the division of assets isn't about who needs to be punished for indiscretions. Consider a couple who are both hardworking professionals, who built up a very successful business together, and then he got caught sleeping around. Should he lose his half of the business?

And even if he should, do we want to go back to the old days of private eyes being hired to get evidence of cheating (including setting up honey traps), just to drag all that evidence in to a court room?

I mean, I get what you're saying about how divorce laws currently work out, I've got problems with people getting half of the assets a person held before they entered the marriage, but I don't think there's much value to be found in returning to moral punishments handed down by the courts.

 whembly wrote:

Yup.

So you endorse harassment? Because this is totally harassment.

Oh, by the way, he owns several strip clubs.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yup.

So you endorse harassment?

He never agreed that it was harassment. You asserted that.

 cincydooley wrote:

He never agreed that it was harassment. You asserted that.

He endorsed a man involved in a case which clearly involves harassment.

One does not buy a property next to one your former spouse owns, and then erect an obscene statue without harassing the former spouse.

dereksatkinson wrote:
I never said homosexuality offended me.

Are you ever going to address the substance of any arguments, or are you just going to nitpick about whether "offended" is the proper description of your attitude? So far all I've seen out of you is arguing over dictionary definitions, not answering my question about how exactly homosexuality is immoral.

Again.. I've never once brought religion into this discussion.

That's the point. You claim to have a non-religious reason for why homosexuality is immoral. I want to know what that reason is.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

He never agreed that it was harassment. You asserted that.

He endorsed a man involved in a case which clearly involves harassment.

One does not buy a property next to one your former spouse owns, and then erect an obscene statue without harassing the former spouse.

Pretty sure for something to be deemed criminal harassment, there must be credible threat of harm.

The only things credible from that situation are that the dude is a dick and that neighborhood has a gakky HoA.

 whembly wrote:

That's why I applauded that one dude buying the apartment next to his ex's. Then putting a huge statue of the middle finger in his back yard, with lights and all. Such that whenever his ex looks out the backyard, she'll see that statue flicking her off.

Wow, that guy sounds like a total witch.