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.

We had a thread on him when it happened.

 d-usa wrote:
We had a thread on him when it happened.

Yeah, but I didn't want to be reminded that he exists.

Sorry, multi-quote went wonky on me, so I'll generally address this to dereksatkinson et al.:

Whatever happened to “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins”?

Two homosexuals marrying each other doesn't impact anyone's personal rights or freedoms. If you still want to have it forbidden, burden of proof how such behaviour negatively impacts society on the whole is on you. The majority's opinion does not suffice as an argument, unless you are so radical a democrat that you believe even matters of human rights are subject to popular vote.

The only two arguments against homosexual marriage rights I've ever encountered are "It's against God's word!" or "It's unnatural!" if you prefer the secular variant, and the somewhat connected "Kids of gay couples will be ridiculed to the point of trauma." So far, this thread has not produced any new ones.

All this talk about descriptive and normative morality is just a smoke screen, as is the uproar about calling it marriage. If you are Christian and believe that only unions made in church really count, that's fine, but we also call secular, muslim or hindu unions "marriages" even though they're clearly not "proper" from a purely religious POV, so what's the difference here?

In a thread that already excludes the religious argument in the title (and I don't even buy that, see Frazzled's post for my feelings on the matter), the only reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry which is left is that *you* don't like them, which is ok, but at least man up and stand by your opinion instead of trying to sugarcoat it.

My argument against same sex marriage using non-religious reasoning is this:

Too many men marrying other men could lead to a cufflink shortage.

I'll be your Huckleberry,

The issue as I see it is this.

Many, many years ago, when civilization had just began, governments were a new thing. So new in fact that in order to convince people to go along with the wishes of the tribal leaders the wise men in the various tribes played upon the fears and superstitions of their peoples by linking divine retribution with various nature based problems within the community and an individual that had committed some social transgression. Basically, they created religion and the scapegoat at the same time. Hence, religion was an integral part of governments through the earliest parts of human history and that legacy still carries into modern civilizations as in the principles upon which many of our modern societies are based upon originate from religious based governments.

Now why did the Rulers continue to use religion after they had established their right to rule???

Simple, to better control the masses.


Now early marriages were normally agreements between to families that often asked for blessings from the local priest/authority figure. The whole thing was fairly informal until the catholic church moved to deal with a problem of what was deemed to be to many false marriages. The legal premise would be that the people had sought out the church for its blessings on new marriages so the people had given them the power. Governments began to also record these "unions'/"marriages" through a system of judges and bureaucracy that where possibly the greatest legacy that the Catholic Church had given the governments There was also the church's victory in getting monogamy to be the rule in theses early times(600-900 ad)*Please note that I have glossed over early Israelite, Arabian and Roman traditions and other instances of Leaders claiming support of a divine power as the reason for why they should rule unquestioned. Again religion and government inexorably intermingled.

So, at this time both The church and the government were both sticking there nose in where it had not really been before.

Then about the time of the Renaissance, European religion and governments began to seperate and fracture/splinter. This lead to centuries of turmoil and oppression. It was this oppression that helped to motivate a fair number of religious dissidents to move to the New World when the opportunity arose. Annnnd... You guessed it, it was these religious individuals that formed the basis of our current country.

Now, when it actually came to the time for the US to become its own entity, The people sent representatives to hammer out the details and for possibly the first time in modern history, a government was founded by a mixture of learned, philosophers, historians, teachers, businessmen and Clergy. It was from this group of learned individuals that a document and its first 10 amendments were forged .

Note, the first one, the very first thing they put in the bill of rights was this:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Now, in modern times the supreme court has interpreted this as "Separation" of Church and State. This modern interpretation has caused many to forget the actual wording of "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".


I know, this seems a bit of a stretch to people for whom spirituality is not daily part of their lives or don't believe in any god but these people are guaranteed the same rights under the constitution as the rest of us.

When you understand their constitutional rights and learn the history of just how intertwined government and religion have been, you can understand how they can believe the term marriage is in their purview. Basically there is enough evidence there for them to make the case.


Now my assertion against gay marriage is that by the argument under which the pro-gay marriage movement seeks to legalize such(That when you go back far enough, marriage was not a religious concept but a business agreement)...This same argument works against the governments right to make any laws concerning marriage, in that it originally was not under the governments purview.


There are other things that complicate the issue such as the Catholic church's long history of providing for the needy with religious based(tax exempt) services(food banks and medical care). Under current anti-discrimination laws, these charities would lose there protections and will likely fail if Gay marriage becomes US law....that is unless the Catholic church caves to secular pressure on a definite no-no in their holy book.


Personally, I believe that the word Marriage is so tainted and intertwined by its history with religion that it should fall under 1st amendment protection and that henceforth no government agency be allowed to issue a "Marriage License". That instead we all should have to get certificates/contracts of union where the government is concerned and that if any group wants to be "married" that they either find a church or found a church that will marry them. This way everyone gets the protections they should have under the government and the constitution.

 cincydooley wrote:

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

The guy bought a house adjacent to that of his ex-wife and erected a large, spotlit, statue of a hand flipping the bird.

How is that not a credible threat?

Just because it's not criminal doesn't mean that he isn't a giant immature man-baby that sounds like he deserved her.

 Allod wrote:
Two homosexuals marrying each other doesn't impact anyone's personal rights or freedoms. If you still want to have it forbidden, burden of proof how such behaviour negatively impacts society on the whole is on you. The majority's opinion does not suffice as an argument, unless you are so radical a democrat that you believe even matters of human rights are subject to popular vote.

I completely agree. Have stated so repeatedly.

 Allod wrote:
All this talk about descriptive and normative morality is just a smoke screen, as is the uproar about calling it marriage. If you are Christian and believe that only unions made in church really count, that's fine, but we also call secular, muslim or hindu unions "marriages" even though they're clearly not "proper" from a purely religious POV, so what's the difference here?

Who exactly is arguing that homosexuals couldn't call their union a marriage?

As for the difference between normative and descriptive morality, the use of the word "morality" takes on a pretty major difference in meaning depending on the context in which it is used. descriptive morality is pretty much emotionally detached, observable and pretty much an academic viewpoint. The problem here is that certain people can't tell the difference even when it's spelled out for them.

 Allod wrote:
the only reason for denying homosexuals the right to marry which is left is that *you* don't like them, which is ok, but at least man up and stand by your opinion instead of trying to sugarcoat it.

I never said we should deny the right to marry to homosexuals. I said that we shouldn't have the state involved in marriage at all. The state shouldn't have the right to deny a same sex marriage and it shouldn't have the right to recognize a marriage either. I have no problem with homosexuals getting married. I think i've said that about half a dozen times and you guys just keep missing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 focusedfire wrote:

Personally, I believe that the word Marriage is so tainted and intertwined by its history with religion that it should fall under 1st amendment protection and that henceforth no government agency be allowed to issue a "Marriage License". That instead we all should have to get certificates/contracts of union where the government is concerned and that if any group wants to be "married" that they either find a church or found a church that will marry them. This way everyone gets the protections they should have under the government and the constitution.

+1

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Yup.

So you endorse harassment? Because this is totally harassment.

Then she should take him to court.

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

Good for him... so... what's the relevance?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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

The guy bought a house adjacent to that of his ex-wife and erected a large, spotlit, statue of a hand flipping the bird.

How is that not a credible threat?

Dunno... Don't get me wrong, it's a Dick™ move. But sometimes, Dick™ moves can be appreciated.

We're kinda getting side-tracked here guys.

I was positing that 'No Fault Divorces' is more destructive to the tradition of Marriage than allowing SSM.

That's all.

 whembly wrote:


I was positing that 'No Fault Divorces' is more destructive to the tradition of Marriage than allowing SSM.

Define "traditional". As long as there has been marriage, there has been the ability to nullify it.

The traditional marriage in certain parts of Africa, Europe, Asia and south america have been polygamist. In modern Western society, polygamy is illegal.

Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?

<---- is extremely happy that No Fault divorce was an option as he and his ex were able to get the feth away from each other quickly and retain our own assets.

dereksatkinson wrote:

Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?

It creates a society where abuse is commonplace and often condoned (see Warren Jeffs and his Mormon pals). Because women become so highly valued as wives, and the number of wives often times is tied to status within the society, young boys are often neglected or forced out. It's also fairly common, because marriages being done so often, that girls are forced to marry too young (see also abuse). These issues (well, except for boys being banished/forced away) are also common among other religions where polygamy has been practiced (see the Middle East)

dereksatkinson wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I was positing that 'No Fault Divorces' is more destructive to the tradition of Marriage than allowing SSM.

Define "traditional". As long as there has been marriage, there has been the ability to nullify it.

True...

Just keep in mind that most argument against SSM is because it somehow destroys the tradition of marriage (poppycock).

If you want to talk about "saving" or "strengthening" the tradition of marriage, (2 spouses living together in a recognized state), then SSM should have no impact. Who the feth cares who marries whom? It's all about the mindset.

My point about the divorce industry is this...

In human behavior, incentives matters... let me explain.

A woman who knows she will get half... the house, the retirement, custody with child support and alimony... regardless if she's the breadwinner of the family and regardless how the marriage ended... will think that she has hit the jackpot in the event of divorce, because those rewards are immediate and tangible. She won’t be as likely to think through the long-term effects, such as: prospect of diminished career potential or future dating/relationship possibiities.

That's why you'd see various statistics stating that upwards to 70% of the divorces are initiated by women.

Simply stated, it's too easy to get a divorce.

I'm not really sure how to make it "harder" to get divorced in modern times as it's really hard to support the idea of the *government* making decisions based on your relationship... but, if it did happen, in whatever form, two things happens:
1) Reinstates that Marriage is very important and not to be taken lightly.
2) Encourages the spouse to work on their marriage, as opposed to pressing the easy relationshipnal nuke button.

That's why I don't give a feth about SSM... let 'me have it. It's the wrong battle to *fight*.

 kronk wrote:
<---- is extremely happy that No Fault divorce was an option as he and his ex were able to get the feth away from each other quickly and retain our own assets.

But it was an "equitable" split... right? You both agreed it was time...right?

It's much easy to do that when both sides agreed it's over and split things accordingly. Which is what happened to my divorce... all things being equal, I got out just fine. But she was close to wanting a court case for full-custody, more of the asset, and alimony.

I told her that I'd fight tooth & nail against that... but, my own attorney warned me that there's an "anti-male industrial complex" in the divorce courts, that it's likely that she'd win if she pushed for this. Luckily...she didn't.

dereksatkinson, I know what you have been saying, but the problem "we guys" have is what you have been quiet about so far: you always said that homosexuals should be able to marry, that's true, BUT always connected with the condition that it doesn't happen under the current state-sanctioned system, because you reject that entirely. You have left it totally ambiguous whether you approve of equal homosexual marriage rights under the system we happen to have. Maybe you could finally clarify this?

Secondly, I know what descriptive morality is. The issue here is that descriptive morality, just like legal positivism, is almost entirely useless as a base for considerations of right and wrong. Thus, it doesn't really help to illustrate your point, because what the majority deems "immoral" says nothing at all about you.

Finally, the "don't call it marriage" thing wasn't from you, but it cropped up somewhere in the first few pages of the thread.

LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

erm...wut? o.O

 Allod wrote:
dereksatkinson, I know what you have been saying, but the problem "we guys" have is what you have been quiet about so far: you always said that homosexuals should be able to marry, that's true, BUT always connected with the condition that it doesn't happen under the current state-sanctioned system, because you reject that entirely. You have left it totally ambiguous whether you approve of equal homosexual marriage rights under the system we happen to have. Maybe you could finally clarify this?

I don't think i've been ambiguous at all. I don't think the state should be allowed to prevent anyone from marrying. I've been saying that since page 3.

dereksatkinson wrote:
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.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Letting everybody marry would mean that they don't determine who you marry though.

It's called liberty..

 d-usa wrote:
To me, getting rid of "marriage" and using another term just feels like a "if we can't keep it for ourselves then nobody can have it" solution.

Not saying that denying marriage to gay couples would be the motivation for everybody that argues against marriage, but to me it would still feel like a win for the anti-gay marriage crowd.

That is NOT what I've argued. In principle, the state simply shouldn't care. If two brothers live in the same household and support eachother they should be able to file a joint tax return. They shouldn't have to, but the option should be on the table. From the government perspective, it shouldn't matter who you are plowing. What should matter is who lives in your household and who contributes to it functioning properly.

And yes... I realize it's not really an argument against same-sex marriage as much as it is an argument against regulation of marriage in and of itself. The biggest problem with this topic is the waters are muddied which is causing people to ask the wrong question. The REAL question is whether or not the way the government regulates this is right.

dereksatkinson wrote:
I do not fear or discriminate against homosexuality.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Allod wrote:
dereksatkinson, I know what you have been saying, but the problem "we guys" have is what you have been quiet about so far: you always said that homosexuals should be able to marry, that's true, BUT always connected with the condition that it doesn't happen under the current state-sanctioned system, because you reject that entirely. You have left it totally ambiguous whether you approve of equal homosexual marriage rights under the system we happen to have. Maybe you could finally clarify this?

I don't think i've been ambiguous at all. I don't think the state should be allowed to prevent anyone from marrying. I've been saying that since page 3.

Except you keep repeating that you think ALL forms of marriage should be abolished..... His question was:

Under the current system that we have, should homosexual couples be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals?

The correct answer here is not "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage" because that's not the question at all.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

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

The guy bought a house adjacent to that of his ex-wife and erected a large, spotlit, statue of a hand flipping the bird.

How is that not a credible threat?

How is it?

Has he previously threatened physical violence? Was there an history of domestic abuse?

An obscene statue does not a threat make.

@D-USA - Completely agree. It's a huge, petty, immature douche move. Doesn't make it a credible threat to her safety like others would contend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Except you keep repeating that you think ALL forms of marriage should be abolished..... His question was:

Under the current system that we have, should homosexual couples be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals?

The correct answer here is not "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage" because that's not the question at all.

He's said a couple times that yes, they should.

And followed it up with "the government shouldn't be involved in marriage."

I think that part of the message is being ignored because he says he believes homosexuality is immoral.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


It creates a society where abuse is commonplace and often condoned (see Warren Jeffs and his Mormon pals). Because women become so highly valued as wives, and the number of wives often times is tied to status within the society, young boys are often neglected or forced out. It's also fairly common, because marriages being done so often, that girls are forced to marry too young (see also abuse). These issues (well, except for boys being banished/forced away) are also common among other religions where polygamy has been practiced (see the Middle East)

By this argument being a single parent should be illegal as well.

There are good single parents out there, but the statistics pretty clearly show that kids from single parent homes suffer "abuses" that children from two-parent families don't.

text removed.

Reds8n

@cincydooley: If you asked me whether I thought that blacks should be allowed to attend non-segregated public schools, and I answered that blacks should absolutely not be discriminated against, but I'm against public schools in principle, so the blacks and everybody else should only be educated by private institutions, what kind of message am I sending out?

It smacks of dialectic shenanigans. I asked a simple, closed question that he chose to deflect instead of answering with a simple yes or no. At the moment, it looks to me like he's either using dakka as a platform for honing his NLP argumentation skills 101, or he's one of the worst communicators I've ever met.

 Allod wrote:
If you asked me whether I thought that blacks should be allowed to attend non-segregated public schools, and I answered that blacks should absolutely not be discriminated against, but I'm against public schools in principle, so the blacks and everybody else should only be educated by private institutions, what kind of message am I sending out?

It smacks of dialectic shenanigans. I asked a simple, closed question that he chose to deflect instead of answering with a simple yes or no. At the moment, it looks to me like he's either using dakka as a platform for honing his NLP argumentation skills 101, or he's one of the worst communicators I've ever met.

No.. you are being dense. It doesn't matter who you are or your sexual orientation.

dereksatkinson wrote:


How is this concept that hard to grasp? It's like you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader.

And with that.. i'm done

Except, that isn't how you were answering the questions. Your usual answer involved "Government marriage should be abolished" which is not the same thing as "government should not have the right to decide who can marry who"

dereksatkinson wrote:

No.. you are being dense. It doesn't matter who you are or your sexual orientation.

So, should homosexuals be able to enter a marriage, with a marriage license by the state, like everybody else, without abolishing state-sanctioned marriages? Jesus, it's a yes or no question, you don't have to come up with a new way to say "I'm against discrimination!" every time.

dereksatkinson wrote:
Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?

I have no issue with polygamy so long as all parties are legally consenting adults.

 Ouze wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?

I have no issue with polygamy so long as all parties are legally consenting adults.

This. As long as there's consent, there shouldn't be a problem.

EDIT: Highlighted the important word. Theory and reality are two very different things.

Interesting (and unexpected) results from Daily Mail poll.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632603/Revealed-What-MailOnline-readers-said-Europe-immigration-tax-crime-gay-marriage-huge-online-survey-40-000-people.html

 cincydooley wrote:

How is it?

Has he previously threatened physical violence? Was there an history of domestic abuse?

Criminal harassment doesn't turn on the threat of violence (that's assault), in some states being offensive for a significant period of time entails harassment.

 cincydooley wrote:

An obscene statue does not a threat make.

I disagree. I believe that the amount of effort, and money, the guy put into acquiring the property and erecting the statue constitutes a threat.

 Manchu wrote:
LOL whembly, I noticed the right wing machine adjusting its sights on divorce and wondered when the tactic would show up on Dakka.

Seconded. Er what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:


How is this concept that hard to grasp? It's like you have the reading comprehension of a 4th grader.

And with that.. i'm done

Except, that isn't how you were answering the questions. Your usual answer involved "Government marriage should be abolished" which is not the same thing as "government should not have the right to decide who can marry who"

Well if he's saying government should no longer have the right to participate in marriage, it stands to reason that government would not have the right to decide who can marry who, because it has no right to decide anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:
Since I brought it up already, can anyone give a valid argument against Polygamy? If not, shouldn't we be concerned about the fact that polygamy isn't legal in western society? Isn't that just as much of an injustice as same sex marriage being illegal?

I have no issue with polygamy so long as all parties are legally consenting adults.

I have extreme issues with that. There is no man cave powerful enough to protect against TWO wives. Jeeze why don't you just curse him to solitary confinement while watching Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. HAve you no decency sir!

 whembly wrote:

Good for him... so... what's the relevance?

Seedy profession, and likely a mob connection.

I would consider that relevant if a guy bought a house next to mine, and erected a statue of a middle finger.