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.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Care to point out how that isn't treating everyone equally?

Because marriage is not about individuals, but couples. Marriage provides tangible legal benefits to couples.

Yes, and everyone is perfectly equal in that. Any man can marry any women, and any women can marry any man, to form a couple.

How is that not perfectly equitable?

Did you not read what I wrote, or are you being willfully ignorant?. Because your argument is what it best described as "insane troll logic".

I read what you wrote.

Yes, the government gives benefits to couples. And everyone has an equal chance to be a couple. Men can marry women, and women can marry men. Again, what isn't equitable about that?

Can you answer that without resorting to personal attacks.

I'm attacking the argument, not you. I think the argument is inane.

It's the exact same argument that some politicians have used (word for word), and it's equally as ridiculous now as it is then.

Ok, why is the argument inane?

Show how it isn't equal for everyone.

As I said, insane troll logic. An argument so demented that any attempt to look at it rationally is very hard pressed to.

Edit: It's the same sort of demented argument used against interracial marriage bans.

So you have no refutation beyond saying "its troll logic"?

Ok, I'll take that as conceding the point.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, why is the argument inane?

Show how it isn't equal for everyone.

This was an argument used against interracial marriages. It was not found to hold suffiicient merit.

having said that issues about race were bolstered by the post ACW Amendments and the Civil Rights Act. That muddies the water.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you have no refutation beyond saying "its troll logic"?

Ok, I'll take that as conceding the point.

Not really, I just don't to take the time out of my day to look do any research to refute an argument that will never matter. That sort of argument would never stand up in a court of law. It's like arguing against conspiracy theorists, not worth my time.

I say the difference between this and interracial marriage is massive. They're not comparable at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I say the difference between this and interracial marriage is massive. They're not comparable at all.

I disagree.

Why do you care if two consenting adult, who happens to be of the same sex, want to enjoy the same recognition/benifits provided by the state?

Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.

Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.

I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.

What about infertile couples?
By that logic you'll need to take a fertility test before a marriage license is granted.

Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children. Besides, outliers shouldnt be considered in a general discussion.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.

Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.

I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.

Well... Ok.

I disagree with that premise.

Gay people can certainly have children and can certainly provide the same way as male/female household unit.

This is why I'd want government to drop the word "marriage" and call all unions "civil unions" that all parties benefit regardless of gender. What you call it in your church, peers, worklife, etc... is your business.

Grey Templar wrote:Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.

Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.

I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.

There are couple holes in that argument.
1st, that marriage is about the production of children when many married people are infertile or just don;t have kids. Not only that, many gay/lesbian couples have kids, either through an agreemnt with another partner, artifical insemination ect. And it forgets about taking care of kids. Gay couples can adopt after all.

Then it looks at it in a religious view, something the 1st amendment disallows. Even if that was true, why can non-religious people marry?

Grey Templar wrote:Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children. Besides, outliers shouldnt be considered in a general discussion.

1.6% of people are gay/lesbian, 11% of reproductive age women are infertile.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I say the difference between this and interracial marriage is massive. They're not comparable at all.

In what manner? Legally, or in some other fashion?

Plaintiffs do not have ACW amendments and constitutional federal law, true. But SCOTUS may stretch or just go back to the earlier decision that knocked DOMA.
I think SCOTUS will dump this. To me what is more relevant is how they will handle what is clearly an appropriate function of the government to otherwise regulate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because those benefits are designed to be compensation for couples that can provide society with children. Gay couples can't do that. Plus marriage is also a sacred institution, one that the government recognizes because of its benefits to society.

Those two combine to be reasons for not allow them to be included.

I'm perfectly OK if you want to institute a secular equivalent, but you can't call it marriage.

1. Gay couples can provide society with children now.
2. That argument also was found to not hold merit in other cases involving infertile couples etc. Earlier in history that was a serious argument, when marriage was about passing on and retaining property. Courts no longer rely on the requirement of the marriage as a babymaker. Otherwise old farts couldn't get married, nor could couples where one or more spouse couldn't have children.

Why can't they call it marriage? Did God copyright it? Should all countries and religions other than Christianity rename marriage to something else, out of respect for your, and only your, traditions, Grey Templar? (I'm christian, btw. And if you're Jewish or something and arguing only those marriage traditions should apply, that just further illustrates the point).

Also, marriage is about far more than just popping out kids. Most of the legal benefits of marriage don't have anything to do with kids, in fact. Things like spouses collecting pensions upon death has absolutely nothing to do with having kids, and you can collect on most child related benefits without being married.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children.

You mean like two women who are married to one another? Or two men who are married to one another?

 DarkLink wrote:
Why can't they call it marriage? Did God copyright it? Should all countries and religions other than Christianity rename marriage to something else, out of respect for your, and only your, traditions, Grey Templar? (I'm christian, btw. And if you're Jewish or something and arguing only those marriage traditions should apply, that just further illustrates the point).

Also, marriage is about far more than just popping out kids. Most of the legal benefits of marriage don't have anything to do with kids, in fact. Things like spouses collecting pensions upon death has absolutely nothing to do with having kids, and you can collect on most child related benefits without being married.

Your rant is sweet like the cries of a baby. Get a job Baby!
They can call it what they want. To be a legally recognized marriage however, it has to meet certain criteria, which is what we're discussing.

Welp, I found another disgusting user on the board to add to my ignore list.

Jack loves Sally. They get married, have kids, and receive benefits through their marriage from the government.

Jack loves Bob. Tough gak, Jack and Bob. You can have a domestic partnership and get no benefits cuz you both have a penis.

You see the problem with this?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Welp, I found another disgusting user on the board to add to my ignore list.

Jack loves Sally. They get married, have kids, and receive benefits through their marriage from the government.

Jack loves Bob. Tough gak, Jack and Bob. You can have a domestic partnership and get no benefits cuz you both have a penis.

You see the problem with this?

Jack and Bob are smarter than Jack and Sally because now they can drive cool cars and go on vacations to Europe?

And why are you putting someone on ignore? If its who I am thinking of, he's gong through the list of good faith arguments made in the past in previous court cases. Some of them may still have merit.

I look forward to this passing, and the unhappiness of many bigots.

Delicious.

(At home in Ireland we're having a referendum on this topic in a short while- I am incredibly nervous that it won't pass! I will be so ashamed to be Irish if that happens. Again. )

To me, it's the "you can't call it marriage!" thing. Stinks of "You can't be in MY clubhouse, queers!"

Marriage is not a christian only thing.

 Da Boss wrote:
Marriage is not a christian only thing.

Or indeed a religious only thing.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fertility treatments basically mean even someone who is totally infertile can have children.

You mean like two women who are married to one another? Or two men who are married to one another?

They physically can't. It is a biological impossibility.

Unless they artificially inseminate. Or adopt. But, y'know, that never happens.

If this passes it will be interesting to see what other types of taboo relationship models become "legalized" or "mainstream" such as polygamy as someone above mentioned.

 cincydooley wrote:
They physically can't. It is a biological impossibility.

Good job humans don't do anything that is bilogically impossible, such as communicating instantly with people from around the globe, or any of the millions of other things humans have been able to do by overcome the natural limitations in place upon our forms.

Babies combining only the DNA of the parents (whether they be male/male or female/female) are not too far off in scientific terms. Ditto with being able to grow babies independent of a natural womb.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, why is the argument inane?

Show how it isn't equal for everyone.

Because a couple isn't just defined as a man and a woman. PS - you need to change your avatar back, i need that grumpy cat fix when i'm reading your posts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, why is the argument inane?

Show how it isn't equal for everyone.

Simple.
X + Y = XY
X + X = XX
XY ≠ XX

 Jihadin wrote:
I going to predict.....the SCOTUS is going to throw it back to the State's

IMO, I think they'll throw it to the states in the same way as they did the "dirty" bits of Brown v. Board of Education.... Sure, they'll come out and say "gay marriage is legal in all 50 states"... but I have the distinct feeling that many of the states where it is still illegal will have lawyers working up ways of "getting around" that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 slk28850 wrote:
If this passes it will be interesting to see what other types of taboo relationship models become "legalized" or "mainstream" such as polygamy as someone above mentioned.

Whoa buddy... one fight at a time here... people ain't ready for that yet

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Ok, why is the argument inane?

Show how it isn't equal for everyone.

Simple.
X + Y = XY
X + X = XX
XY ≠ XX

People didn't figure that out when the made the argument of "white people can marry white people, black people can marry black people, everything is equal" when arguing for the constitutionality of the interracial marriage bans. They are not going to figure out that it is a stupid argument for this either.

 cincydooley wrote:

 juraigamer wrote:
And so it begins, another great and useless political battle of our time.

Kinda my feelings. I don't understand why it is still an issue. Sad to see so much time and money is going to be wasted on something that should be a pretty clear right for all.

Although I'm still convinced the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all.

It has to be. If we look at marriage from the vantage that there's a bifurcation, a clear line of demarcation, then that line can only be the Ritualistic and the Legal notions of marriage.

The religious, lovey-dovey, white wedding, dad walks me down the isle, sickness and health, Bridezilla, bachelor party, etc - that's the Ritual side of it.

Marriage is also a legally binding contract and has been since a couple of Tuesdays before history was recorded. This is the side with Dowry's and prenups and Familial political arrangements, etc., and the legal recognition of two people as one legal and contractual "entity" for certain things like taxes, etc.

Unfortunately where there's a contract means there's laws. Where there's laws, there's societal systems in place to enforce them. Which means government. Whether that's at the hunter gatherer tribal band level, or the Federalistc Democratic Republic level.

And if there's laws, systems, and governments enforcing them, then there's definitions of what these are, and with the contract of marriage, it unfortunately starts with "what is marriage and who is marriage between".


... but i'm with you. I can't believe it's 2015 and this is still a thing we're debating.