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.

 cincydooley wrote:

Noir wrote:
[

So your just here to make waves. I seen other post from you, so I know you aren't so dumb as miss the point of his post or why he picked 99% out of the air.

Picking it out of thin air is precisely the problem. It's entirely disingenuous.

It's also an outright falsehood to claim the majority of people were for gay marriage, as multiple states passed legislature THROUGH A VOTE against it.

Damn, I guess I gave you to much credit.

 Henry wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I couldn't care less about gay marriage, aside from the fact that I don't believe the government should anything to do with marriage whatsoever.

That doesn't make sense. Marriage is exactly the sort of thing that governments are supposed to be involved in. Legal rights, taxes, inheritance and many other things are all highly affected by your legal marriage status and are all systems managed by the government. That's why any religious person (or anyone at all for that matter) can "marry" you, but only someone authorised by the government can say you are married.

Now if we were talking about relationships, partners and such in non legally recognised domestic situations then I agree - it's absolutely no business of the government at all with regards to who is shagging whom. Get yourself "married" by a priest and don't fill out the legal documents and you can happily say you are married, but the government won't recognise it and you'll miss out on any of those benefits. Also settling disputes in non legally recognised marriages can be painfully difficult.

Hell, that's half the reason people were pushing for legally recognising marriage between gay couples. Inheritance was a pain in the arse. Even be lisomething as seemingly trivial as visitation rights at a hospital all depend on that government sanctioned bit of paper that says you're married.

For legally binding marriages the government must be involved.

Exactly. If religion had anything to do with making a marriage legal whatsoever, civil unions would not be legitimate. The long history of religion in this world just has the majority brainwashed that religion should be lifted up above all else when the majority is concerned, when religion should only just a personal private thing that should govern the lives of only those to choose to give it that authority for their own peace of mind, and not give them any sort of power over anyone else.

Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.

Let me elaborate, since I am now getting reported for saying this

It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children. The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.

The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.

Wrong in one important part. Modern marrige also protects the partner and lets them speak for the other legally when one of them is incapacitated.

That is the part most homosexual couples are demanding to be treated fairly about.

Actually, trying to spread a disgusting lie like "Gay men are ripping babies from their mothers" is pretty fething abhorrent.

Cue linking one or two stories where something on the surface bears a slight resemblance to what you claimed, and then pretending that represents the majority of gay men and isn't just a few outliers.

And particularly telling of most author's mindsets when gay women are not mentioned in most arguments against gay rights, only those "ookie, creepy gay dudes".

ConanMan wrote:
Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.

Let me elaborate, since I am now getting reported for saying this

It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children. The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.

The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.

The ancient social contact to protect and nurture childern is cummunal tribe based, not 2 parent based. In fact we know in "ancient times" women unfit to rasie their childern had them removed form them. We also know homosexual was celebrated in "ancient time". What was your point again.


Love the of poor me tone of your post, says a lot about you.

ConanMan wrote:
It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children.

So what? It's impossible for an infertile man and an infertile woman to have children, but we still call their union a "marriage". Also, ever hear of this wonderful new invention called "adoption"?

It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.

Again, adoption. A gay couple still uses all of the benefits designed to protect and nurture children even if those children do not share their parents' DNA. Or are you going to claim that adopted children don't deserve to be protected and nurtured?

The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.

This is just laughably wrong. Nobody is having their children "ripped off" against their will. Please don't confuse surrogate mothers, who are paid for their services and voluntarily agree in advance to give up the child, with this absurd straw man of gay men going around stealing babies from innocent victims.

Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.

Don't act like you're being persecuted here. Your freedom of speech has not been restricted, and a private forum choosing to enforce rules for discussion is is not in any way the same as making it illegal to object to a law. Nor is there even the slightest possible chance that speaking against gay marriage will be illegal in the US.

Peregrine, I think I found the case he's referring to, it's worth a read.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32603514

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3068796/Deceitful-surrogate-mother-carried-baby-wealthy-gay-couple-refused-hand-desperate-child-herself.html <- daily mail I know.

Seems the surrogate lied and tried to smear the father (so the gay man is actually the biological father!) and his significant other. Good case!

As a side note, looking up gay men stealing babies caused me to find out that apparently gay men are stealing female black culture. What.

ConanMan wrote:
Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.

This is where you are right. There is no such thing as a homosexual marriage.

Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.

It was called marriage equality for a reason.

Noir wrote:


Damn, I guess I gave you to much credit.

Oh no. I'm destroyed.

Support the statistics you bring to the table or don't use them.

Pretty simple.

Marriage should be a legally binding contract between consenting adults (and multiple if they so choose). What marriage is and is not should not be the purview of the state.

David Boaz wrote a pretty solid argument that was published in Slate on the matter. Here it is: http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1997/04/privatize_marriage.html

ConanMan wrote:
Sadly for all the masses of high fives going on: There simply is no such thing as homosexual marriage. There just isn't and to make one up breaks so much law it is horrendous.

Let me elaborate, since I am now getting reported for saying this

It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children. The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.

The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.

Why would you be reported? The people here on Dakka have big people pants and can handle themselves pretty well.
I have to say this, though, I have a cousin who worked social services for 30 years and he saw plenty of straight couple who had no business having children due the the abuses they would put them through. On the other hand, some of the best parents he ever saw were gay couples.

sirlynchmob wrote:


Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.
.

Well, that's not true either, is it?

In a number of states cousins cannot marry. In a handful it's even criminalized.

 cincydooley wrote:
Support the statistics you bring to the table or don't use them.

Or understand the obvious difference between genuine statistics and an exaggerated way of saying "the vast majority". You seem to be the only person who thought that "99.999999%" was meant to be a real statistic. Now the only question is whether you are genuinely confused, or just nitpicking for the sake of having something to argue about.

Marriage should be a legally binding contract between consenting adults (and multiple if they so choose). What marriage is and is not should not be the purview of the state.

IOW, "the poor lawyers need more money, let's give it to them just so we can have our moral high ground about everything being 'private'".

I thought pedantry was a way of life in the OT.

At least that's what 99.999*% of posts show.

 Peregrine wrote:

IOW, "the poor lawyers need more money, let's give it to them just so we can have our moral high ground about everything being 'private'".

Was there an actual argument there? Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:


Any 2 people can enter into a marriage contract. Any 2 people can get married. There's only one type of marriage, 2 men can get married, 2 women can get married, and 1 man and 1 woman can get married. and a black person can marry a white person.
.

Well, that's not true either, is it?

In a number of states cousins cannot marry. In a handful it's even criminalized.

And as your post implies there are states where cousins can legally marry, I'm sure in those states where it is criminalized if anyone really wanted to, they could challenge it in court and win the right to marry their cousin. It would still be just a marriage though and not some newly invented type of marriage.

 cincydooley wrote:
Was there an actual argument there? Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?

The compelling reason is this: if you privatize marriage people have to pay more money to lawyers to arrange their own contracts and do what they currently get with a single standardized contract, and the only benefit is that it follows "privatize everything" ideology and/or is a polite way of saying "I hate gay people, if they have to have marriage then nobody gets one". If you want to argue for changes to something then you need to provide some reasons why we should make those changes.

 Peregrine wrote:


The compelling reason is this: if you privatize marriage people have to pay more money to lawyers to arrange their own contracts and do what they currently get with a single standardized contract, and the only benefit is that it follows "privatize everything" ideology and/or is a polite way of saying "I hate gay people, if they have to have marriage then nobody gets one". If you want to argue for changes to something then you need to provide some reasons why we should make those changes.

Oh that's right. I forgot in other privatized areas standard template contracts/documents don't exist. Someone should probably tell LegalZoom.

Regardless, since your default here is to claim any desire to privatize marriage is that one must be a bigot, I'm done with the conversation.

Truth be told, I shouldn't have ever started it because you always think you're right.

Shame on me.

Cheers.

 cincydooley wrote:


Truth be told, I shouldn't have ever started it because you always think you're right.

A certain cooking-related phrase comes to mind...

If you decide to say that gay people can get married then you are saying that marriage is now not a transgenerational contract for the betterment of children.

Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now? Has our society got it right? Relationship breakdown all time high. Courts over blown with cases, fathers not paying maintenance, children being more and more nutty, gangs, tonnes of single parents. That is todays society. No hiding it. So. Do you not think that since the 1950 us departing from litterally thousands of years of society structures (which are there for a reason, because kids take 20 years to grow up) like marriage, nuclear families, real notion of fatherhood. Do you not think it is patently obvious we are WORSE today for turning out back on that?

If you think we are at some sort of zenith of awesomsauce re: bringing up children I have news for you. Register to foster. They will batter your door down to take a kid. There are thousands of kids of crack addled inmates desperate to be fostered. They are there right now. They weren't there in such numbers even when abortion was illegal so where have they come from?

Loss of tradition

Inability to learn from history

So we abandon everything we know used to work so we can high five each other without a clue as to the fallout. And as to that guy who said " some hetrosexual parents are bad at it " since when did decending into bad cases ever become a basis for worsening of any law. It's woeful logic. I hope you know. Lawyers cry over it. Citing bad cases do not make good laws. Ever. Despite how politicians like to behave.

And to the guy saying that that woman smeared two gay men over the forced adoption there are at least 3 cases not one, and all of them had the woman in prison. The birth mother. The owner of the overy. No invitro fertilisation. Normal sex. But the mother had the baby forcibly removed her name taken off the birth certificate and the woman threatened with prision if she talked .. and three so far have.. and are behind bars.. the rest.. we can't know about

 cincydooley wrote:
Oh that's right. I forgot in other privatized areas standard template contracts/documents don't exist. Someone should probably tell LegalZoom.

Obviously standardized contracts exist and privatizing marriage wouldn't create an impossible obstacle to getting married, but you're ignoring the question of why should we use that approach. Even if it's possible to privatize marriage with a relatively small amount of inconvenience and extra legal expenses what exactly are we gaining? Is there any practical benefit to the average person, or is it just part of libertarian "privatize everything" ideology?

Regardless, since your default here is to claim any desire to privatize marriage is that one must be a bigot, I'm done with the conversation.

Sigh. So I guess you didn't bother to read what I actually said? There was a very clear "or" in that sentence, and the "privatize everything" group has nothing to do with bigotry. In fact the "privatize everything" bit was intended to be the main point, and I just added the "or bigots" because otherwise someone would inevitably point out that there are bigots in addition to the libertarians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ConanMan wrote:
If you decide to say that gay people can get married then you are saying that marriage is now not a transgenerational contract for the betterment of children.

No, because, as I pointed out already, gay couples can adopt children and use all of the "for the children" aspects of marriage.

Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now? Has our society got it right? Relationship breakdown all time high. Courts over blown with cases farthers not paying maintenance, children being more and more nutty, tonnes of single parents. That is todays society. No hiding it. So. Do you not think that since the 1950 us departing from litterally thoudands of years of society structures (which are there for a reason, because kids take 20 years to grow up) like marriage, nuclear families, real notion of father hood. Do you not think it is patently obvious we are WORSE today for turning out back on that?

What does any of this have to do with gay marriage?

(PS: the answer is "absolutely nothing".)

They will batter your door down to take a kid.

No they won't. Please stop making these ridiculous straw man arguments.

So we abandon everything we knownused to work so we can high five each other without a clue as to the fallout.

What exactly is this supposed "fallout" of gay marriage, and what evidence do you have that your concerns are at all credible? So far all I've seen on the subject is a bunch of absurd slippery slope "arguments" and semi-coherent rants about the decline of modern society.

And as to that guy who said " some hetrosexual parents are bad at it " since when did decending into bad cases ever become a basis for wosrsening of any.law.

The point is that there is no worsening of the law. There are plenty of perfectly good gay couples doing a better job of raising children than those bad straight couples, so why shouldn't their marriage be legally recognized? This entire "argument" seems to be based on a bigoted assumption that gay parents are bad for children.

And to the guy saying that that woman smeared two gay men over the forced adoption there are at least 3 cases not one, and all of them had the woman in prison. The birth mother. The owner of the overy. No invitro fertilisation. Normal sex. But the mother had the baby forcibly removed her name taken off the birth cerificate and the woman thrwatened with prision if she talked .. and three so far have.. and are behind bars.. the rest.. we can't know about

{citation needed}

I suspect that if/when you provide a credible source for this story we'll see that it has nothing to do with "gay terrorists are going to steal your babies".

Considering the first case I came across, it's obvious that he's full of gak.

I'm not interested in educating homophobes, so you have fun Peregrine.

ConanMan wrote:
If you decide to say that gay people can get married then you are saying that marriage is now not a transgenerational contract for the betterment of children.

Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now? Has our society got it right? Relationship breakdown all time high. Courts over blown with cases farthers not paying maintenance, children being more and more nutty, tonees of single parents. That is todays society. No hiding it. So. Do you not think that since the 1950 us departing from litterally thoudands of years of society structures (which are there for a reason, becaud kids take 20 to grow up) like marriage, nuclear families, real notion of father hood. Do you not think it is patently obvious we are WORSE today for turning out back on that?

Firstly, you're assuming that marriage has always been a "transgenerational contract for the betterment of the children" without providing anything to prove that to be the case. "Think of the children!!!11!" is a rather dishonest way of arguing a point.

Secondly, the fact that people are divorcing more might have to do with the fact that they simply weren't allowed to in the past. Forcing people to stay in a relationship that isn't working sounds like a great environment for kids to grow up in. Further, I'm pretty sure that being black, homo- or bisexual, or anything else that isn't the norm in society is infinitely more pleasant today than the 1950's. Your entire argument is essentially one big argumentum ad antiquitatem.

 cincydooley wrote:
Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?

How would you go about privatizing marriage? I mean, private entities can already pronounce marriage on a whim; the only question is government recognition.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I thought pedantry was a way of life in the OT.

It is usually well crafted pedantry.

 cincydooley wrote:


Was there an actual argument there? Are there compelling reasons that it shouldn't be privatized?

Because the government doesn't recognize private agreements. Which would make all the legal reasons for marring (custody, social security, ect.) moot. Your "privitzation" of marriage would remove all the reasons for gay people are fighting for marriage. They can already to private ceremonies to get "married", but that doesn't mean anything if they don't have a license from the government.

ConanMan wrote:
It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.

That 'ancient legal and social contract' is nothing to do with protecting children. It's a legal binding of two (or more, in some cases) people into a single legally-recognised entity. A requirement for that union to product offspring has been present in that contract in some cultures, in some times, but is far from universal... and as others have pointed out, would not just disallow same-sex couples from marrying, but would also prevent infertile people, people past child-rearing age, or people with no interest in having children from marrying. We allow all of those... so why not allow same-sex couples to do the same?

The worst part is mothers are already having their children ripped off them by gay married men. This has hsppened - the mothers are rebranded surrogates - despite being the biological mother of the child. And gay men are using th courts to rip children from mothers.

That has nothing to do with same-sex marriage... it's just people being crap to each other. And that happens in 'traditional' family units as well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ConanMan wrote:
There are thousands of kids of crack addled inmates desperate to be fostered. They are there right now. They weren't there in such numbers even when abortion was illegal so where have they come from?

Well, no... Back when your awesome social construct for the betterment of children was in place, those children would have instead just been living on the streets. Or dead.

At the center of any marriage is two adults who love each other and who want to spend the rest of their lives together. What their sexual preferences are should not matter. Nor should their fertility.

If the partners decide to have more than two adults as partners then that should be a choice that they make together.

ConanMan wrote:
It is "in principle" impossible for a man and a man to have children. It is therefor a nonsense to suggest they need access to to an ancient legal and social contract desiged primarily to protect and nurture children.

Inheritance is the primary reason for marriage. The idea of marriage as the best way to raise children is a very, very modern thing, because thinking about anything in terms of how best to raise children is very modern.

The second part is this: I should NOT be reported for saying this. But I will be. Soon. If not already. Ask yourself how many laws ever got passed where right after it became illegal to object.

It's generally considered good form to wait until after you've been nailed to the cross before declaring your martyrdom.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ConanMan wrote:
Can you honestly say that we are better at bringing up kids now?

Let's look at some metrics, shall we?

Teen pregnacy;


Drug use;


Teen crime rate;

Relationship breakdown all time high.

That is factually incorrect.




Let's just put this simply - you have absolutely no factual basis for any of your beliefset. Your theory is devoid of connection with the real world.

Anyone who pre-emptively gets in a jab about people reporting his posts to gag him clearly has a victimhood complex they want affirmed. One man fighting the brave fight for the truth in the face of overwhelming liberalism, or somesuch, I'm not expecting a quality debate.