If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Phatscotty]

Pscotty, why do you care?

For the same reason he disagrees with hamsters now being able to vote once we started letting those women vote.

aren't you the one that posted this? Cuz it's all you so far



Unless you are just that up front about what you're doing?

Says the guy who posted the youtube video that flat out says "If a fundamental right, the states wouldn't be able to regulate who, how many, or what were to be married."

Nice try turning that around. But I won't play your usual game.

Well, that's the point. Did you watch the video at all?

[Phatscotty]

Pscotty, why do you care?

For the same reason he disagrees with hamsters now being able to vote once we started letting those women vote.

I think he has an ulterior motive. He wants to marry his pet sheep Dolly and is trying to break down the barriers.

I can hear them now:

Phatscotty says: "Was it good for you Dolly?"

Dolly the sheep says: "Not baaaaaaaad."

is this a new defense mechanism? weird

[2dimes]

Pscotty, why do you care?

What does whether I care or not have anything to do with anything?

You really are a nasty piece of work.

Sorry to ask but am I the only one that agrees with that question.

If any two people get married or a bunch even. Does phatscotty's opinion on it make any difference at all?

I can't see how.

[crispybits]

Scotty - let me ask you one question - should men and women be treated legally differently? Should someone's gender (whatever their sexuality) be a grounds for different legal treatment by the government? Should a man be granted a right because he is a man, that a woman is denied because she is a woman (or vice versa)?

all people should be treated the same as much as we can. Of course I realize that women seem to have more rights when it comes to custody of a child. However "rights" have nothing to do with whether or not the person excersizing them is a male or a female. A person has rights.

OK in that case I have person X and person Y. Without asking any questions about legally protected characteristics (such as race, religion or gender) can you please tell me if those two people should be allowed to form a legal marriage contract?

of course more information is needed, but I do understand why all the vagueness

Legally, why is more information needed? You can ask any question you like about either person, just not anything to do with legally protected characteristics, because to discriminate based on these characteristics is not allowed, for very good reasons.

So, ask all the questions you need to get all the information you want, but keep it legal. I'm not asking for any redefinition of marriage, I'm just asking if person X and person Y should be allowed to form this legal contract. It's a very simple question.

[notyou2]

Pscotty, why do you care?

What does whether I care or not have anything to do with anything?

You really are a nasty piece of work.

Sorry to ask but am I the only one that agrees with that question.

If any two people get married or a bunch even. Does phatscotty's opinion on it make any difference at all?

I can't see how.

My point exactly, but instead he dodges and calls me Neo. But that is not a bad thing as I like and respect Neo.

[Phatscotty]

I can tell you what marriage is, rather than go over a bunch of things that marriage isn't.

Marriage is a special bond between a man and a woman which recognizes the ability to create children. No not all married people marry to have children, but not all married people have to marry for the same reason to give that definition. Yes it's true, over the last few generations (since the break up of the family unit) that divorce has become mainstream and marriage has been debased and turned into a monetary benefit decision, be it from the government or for health insurance, but that doesn't make these things legitimate redefiners of marriage either.

People can love whoever they want, and if they want a piece of paper, and to get those benefits, then they need to change the laws on a state level and get a civil union or a domestic partnership or whatever they want to call it.

It's not anyone's fault that marriage has always been a man and a woman, or that has been all society has recognized throughout the past, or that the government decided to endorse it initially to build strong families. It's the culture that has changed. That doesn't make the culture right or wrong, and I'm not trying to say it's wrong, but it's others who are trying to force that it's right.

Whatever a state wants to do, they should do it. But marriage is not a fundamental right, or a civil right, or anything like that.

[2dimes]

I thought he called newguy neo.

[notyou2]

Marriage was around long before the government slimed it's way in the middle and started taxing the act.

I would expect you to be the first one to say, live and let live, and tell the government to get it's hand out of the pockets of people that want to get married.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you're a hypocrite.

[notyou2]

I thought he called newguy neo.

Wow, I was trying to deflect, but you really spelled that one out for everyone to see. Way to go 20 cents.

[2dimes]

Sorry.

I know a lot of people that had kids without getting married.

[Phatscotty]

Pscotty, why do you care?

Because gender matters. To say gender doesn't matter when it comes to something that has always been a bond between opposite sexes is to say the bond doesn't matter.

Anywhere difference between gender is obliterated in marriage, other things follow. Fore example boy scouts and girl scouts, boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms/locker rooms, boys basketball and girls basketball.

Gender matters

[notyou2]

Pscotty, why do you care?

Because gender matters. To say gender doesn't matter when it comes to something that has always been a bond between opposite sexes is to say the bond doesn't matter.

Anywhere difference between gender is obliterated in marriage, other things follow. Fore example boy scouts and girl scouts, boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms/locker rooms, boys basketball and girls basketball.

Gender matters

By this logic, to cut down a tree means the destruction of an entire forest.

Tell us the real reason your Phatness.

[crispybits]

You don't think love and commitment are the bond, that some piece of paper given by a government official is what the bond IS?

Sometimes I can't help but wonder....

Are you planning to answer my hypothetical question any time PS?

[Phatscotty]

You don't think love and commitment are the bond, that some piece of paper given by a government official is what the bond IS?

Sometimes I can't help but wonder....

Are you planning to answer my hypothetical question any time PS?

sure love and commitment are part of the bond. So is financial stability and child bearing hip range.

[new guy1]

Pscotty, why do you care?

Because gender matters. To say gender doesn't matter when it comes to something that has always been a bond between opposite sexes is to say the bond doesn't matter.

Anywhere difference between gender is obliterated in marriage, other things follow. Fore example boy scouts and girl scouts, boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms/locker rooms, boys basketball and girls basketball.

Gender matters

Animals have been shown to have homosexuality. It crosses and obliterates all lines between species. I have never attended a marriage between any animals, so I dont think bonds between men and women have been around longer than homosexuality.

[Phatscotty]

Pscotty, why do you care?

Because gender matters. To say gender doesn't matter when it comes to something that has always been a bond between opposite sexes is to say the bond doesn't matter.

Anywhere difference between gender is obliterated in marriage, other things follow. Fore example boy scouts and girl scouts, boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms/locker rooms, boys basketball and girls basketball.

Gender matters

Animals have been shown to have homosexuality. It crosses and obliterates all lines between species. I have never attended a marriage between any animals, so I dont think bonds between men and women have been around longer than homosexuality.

fascinating point. "Animals do it!" I don't even see how that is a response to what I wrote. I will point out, I guess, I was talking about humans.

[crispybits]

You don't think love and commitment are the bond, that some piece of paper given by a government official is what the bond IS?

Sometimes I can't help but wonder....

Are you planning to answer my hypothetical question any time PS?

sure love and commitment are part of the bond. So is financial stability and child bearing hip range.

So now we're going to restrict marrriage not only on fertility but also on financial stability?

Also, and again, are you planning to answer my hypothetical question on persons X and Y any time PS?

[new guy1]

Pscotty, why do you care?

Because gender matters. To say gender doesn't matter when it comes to something that has always been a bond between opposite sexes is to say the bond doesn't matter.

Anywhere difference between gender is obliterated in marriage, other things follow. Fore example boy scouts and girl scouts, boy's bathrooms and girl's bathrooms/locker rooms, boys basketball and girls basketball.

Gender matters

Animals have been shown to have homosexuality. It crosses and obliterates all lines between species. I have never attended a marriage between any animals, so I dont think bonds between men and women have been around longer than homosexuality.

fascinating point. "Animals do it!" I don't even see how that is a response to what I wrote

Quoted the wrong one. I can get the quote if it matters, but the point stands. And are we not animals? What separates us from animals? We just have the advantage of thumbs (which monkeys share) and the ability to make decisions and tools. We are mammals, last I checked, which classifies us as animals. So yes, I will stand by animals do it.

[Phatscotty]

You don't think love and commitment are the bond, that some piece of paper given by a government official is what the bond IS?

Sometimes I can't help but wonder....

Are you planning to answer my hypothetical question any time PS?

sure love and commitment are part of the bond. So is financial stability and child bearing hip range.

So now we're going to restrict marrriage not only on fertility but also on financial stability?

Also, and again, are you planning to answer my hypothetical question on persons X and Y any time PS?

None of that was about restriction. You said a couple reasons why people get married, I added a couple more. My point meant exactly as much as yours.

I told you already the answer. You can plug in the information from the top of this page to your equation. Sorry the quotes were getting out of hand

[crispybits]

I told you already the answer. You can plug in the information from the top of this page to your equation. Sorry the quotes were getting out of hand

No worries, that's why I kept reminding you.

OK, I've asked person X and person Y everything I'm legally allowed to ask them from your description. Unfortunately one of them was born infertile (I can't tell you which for legal reasons), so they will never be able to have kids together, but apart from that they do share a special, loving committed emotional bond, they are financially stable, etc. Everything I am legally allowed to ask them which could be used as a legally valid reason to prevent them entering a legal contract has provided no red flags at all. So I can now assume that there should be no legal reason they should not be allowed to marry each other right?

[notyou2]

I told you already the answer. You can plug in the information from the top of this page to your equation. Sorry the quotes were getting out of hand

No worries, that's why I kept reminding you.

OK, I've asked person X and person Y everything I'm legally allowed to ask them from your description. Unfortunately one of them was born infertile (I can't tell you which for legal reasons), so they will never be able to have kids together, but apart from that they do share a special, loving committed emotional bond, they are financially stable, etc. Everything I am legally allowed to ask them which could be used as a legally valid reason to prevent them entering a legal contract has provided no red flags at all. So I can now assume that there should be no legal reason they should not be allowed to marry each other right?

Right.

[Phatscotty]

I told you already the answer. You can plug in the information from the top of this page to your equation. Sorry the quotes were getting out of hand

No worries, that's why I kept reminding you.

OK, I've asked person X and person Y everything I'm legally allowed to ask them from your description. Unfortunately one of them was born infertile (I can't tell you which for legal reasons), so they will never be able to have kids together, but apart from that they do share a special, loving committed emotional bond, they are financially stable, etc. Everything I am legally allowed to ask them which could be used as a legally valid reason to prevent them entering a legal contract has provided no red flags at all. So I can now assume that there should be no legal reason they should not be allowed to marry each other right?

Okay well like I already said, having children is not the only reason to get married, especially over the last couple generations.

All I am saying is that there is a name for the bond that a male and a female makes to become parents and create a child and to put something above themselves that can help survive the struggle through the hard times when people want to give up. That term is marriage, and I truly believe that the weaker marriage becomes, the more society will suffer as more and more children are raised without a father and born out of wedlock etc; raised in less than ideal situations. That isn't to say there aren't problems and circumstances beyond people's control, but it is to say we should hold up the ideal family structure as something to strive towards, but not imposed, and certainly not abandoned.

I think as long as person X is a male, and person Y is a female, and they are not related beyond a certain extent, and they are of legal consenting age, of course they should be able to marry. Why wouldn't they?

as an aside, do you believe that it is good advice for a couple to get married before they have children? why or why not?

[BigBallinStalin]

Looks like we're trapped by different definitions of "marriage."

Phatscotty, in stateless society, would you be opposed to gay couples* obtaining a 'civil union'?

*assuming they are consenting, 'normal' adults. (Normal as in no abnormal mental impairments and the like).

[Phatscotty]

Looks like we're trapped by different definitions of "marriage."

Phatscotty, in stateless society, would you be opposed to gay couples* obtaining a 'civil union'?

*assuming they are consenting, 'normal' adults. (Normal as in no abnormal mental impairments and the like).

No. I fully support civil unions for whatever 2 people want them, gay or straight. I've only said that like a million times tho. I would vote for that.

Of course there are different definitions of marriage now. That's what this is all about. redefining marriage.

[new guy1]

Looks like we're trapped by different definitions of "marriage."

Phatscotty, in stateless society, would you be opposed to gay couples* obtaining a 'civil union'?

*assuming they are consenting, 'normal' adults. (Normal as in no abnormal mental impairments and the like).

No. I fully support civil unions for whatever 2 people want them, gay or straight. I've only said that like a million times tho. I would vote for that.

Of course there are different definitions of marriage now. That's what this is all about. redefining marriage.

So because you also put down (or I believe you said it, dont quote me on that) that you dont care if they get the same rights and all that married couples get, that you just think they should be named different? I dont know if that's what your saying, but thats what Im putting together.