If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Woodruff]

Open minded challenge #1 - listening to both sides

Open-minded? That video starts out with an absolute lie regarding the definition of marriage. How is that open-minded?

Didn't you foe me? Either foe me and don't read my posts or don't foe me and read/respond to all of the points I make. Stop cherry-picking posts so that you can throw out more vague generalities and video clips.

And finally, when do you start listening to both sides?

[Phatscotty]

Openminded Challenge #2

Dennis Prager gives a rational, unemotional, factual, conservative opinion on gay marriage, followed by an example of the opposing argument.

[Juan_Bottom]

It is a matter of who do you love.

What's wrong with two consenting adults, who are related, being allowed to marry? I don't have a problem with it, and they didn't care in the ancient world. They aren't f*cking hurting me, so let them marry.

If you love two people, and they love each other and you, then why the hell can't you get married?... Nobody is being hurt. So it's nobody else's business.

"You can't make policy based on sympathy for the individual."

You can't make policy based on sympathy. Law would break down if it had to include every individual. Because there are so many sad cases that fall outside of the perimeter."

When no one is going to be hurt by the change in policy, but one person will be helped up, then yes, you do make policy for the individual. This is sorta what Civil Rights is all about. Why did we extend equal voting rights to minorities or women?

I dunno, this guy sounds like a simpleton to me.

[Phatscotty]

It is a matter of who do you love.

What's wrong with two consenting adults, who are related, being allowed to marry? I don't have a problem with it, and they didn't care in the ancient world. They aren't f*cking hurting me, so let them marry.

If you love two people, and they love each other and you, then why the hell can't you get married?... Nobody is being hurt. So it's nobody else's business.

"You can't make policy based on sympathy for the individual."

You can't make policy based on sympathy. Law would break down if it had to include every individual. Because there are so many sad cases that fall outside of the perimeter."

When no one is going to be hurt by the change in policy, but one person will be helped up, then yes, you do make policy for the individual. This is sorta what Civil Rights is all about. Why did we extend equal voting rights to minorities or women?

I dunno, this guy sounds like a simpleton to me.

Does stealing "hurt" anyone? how about embezzlement? How about a car-jacking?

3 people CAN love each other, they just can't get 3 way married. Marriage is not a permission slip to love. I never could understand this simpleton argument. (serious though)

[Juan_Bottom]

It's not. It's a legal contract. I've never understood why some people are legally allowed and even encouraged to get contracts, but other people are denied for no reason. And then that leads to denial for inheritance, insurance, and all sorts of crap that liberals have been fighting Conservatives over on the national level for 8 years now.

If you want a wedding, go to church.
If you want a marriage contract, go to court.
And since marriage is a contract, not a wedding... the involvement of the court makes it a civil rights issue.

[Juan_Bottom]

Also yes, stealing, carjacking, and embezzlement crimes all have victims.

Telling gay people that you wont let them get married because you don't approve of buttsex (presumably) is a crime against civil rights; making them the victim and you the oppressor. (hypothetically speaking)

[Phatscotty]

It's not. It's a legal contract. I've never understood why some people are legally allowed and even encouraged to get contracts, but other people are denied for no reason. And then that leads to denial for inheritance, insurance, and all sorts of crap that liberals have been fighting Conservatives over on the national level for 8 years now.

If you want a wedding, go to church.
If you want a marriage contract, go to court.
And since marriage is a contract, not a wedding... the involvement of the court makes it a civil rights issue.

Those things can and should be changed in the law, at a state level. Again, marriage does not need to be redefined in order to handle the inheritance issue, or even the hospital visitation issue.

JB, lemme ask ya something only slightly related. What is the gay population in America?

[Phatscotty]

Also yes, stealing, carjacking, and embezzlement crimes all have victims.

Telling gay people that you wont let them get married because you don't approve of buttsex (presumably) is a crime against civil rights; making them the victim and you the oppressor. (hypothetically speaking)

Sure they are victims, but were they "harmed"? I think a lot of crime is committed based on the thought that nobody is harmed, so it's okay. Just know, that's a justification most popular amongst criminals or people who know they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

And nobody is telling people that gay people can't get married, as you like to frame it. The definition of marriage tells everyone that marriage is between one man and one woman.

You put so much emphasis that people are being hated on or that this is discrimination, but you don't realize that gay marriage has only first been legalized in the world in the year 2000.

Laws take a long time to change, you know that right? Do you also know that not everybody wants the same things you want? And that everyone doesn't see things the way you do?

And this isn't just simply a matter of law, like you guys like to emphasize. This is just as much a matter of culture if not more so, and you are trying to bulldoze an entire creed of people into changing what to many people is a very serious issue, perhaps the most serious of all issues, to them. Recognize that we are not trying to force anything, but that you are trying to force something.

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

[crispybits]

OK firstly the second video is not at all balanced, and if you honestly believe it is then I have to wonder. One conservative delivering a monologue for nearly 25 minutes, followed by an example of the opposition for 2-3 minutes that's not someone who is arguing in the same way or indeed is maybe even capable of debating at that level, is not balanced. It would be the same as me getting Joe Biden in for a 25 minute monologue, followed by some average North Carolinan giving 2-3 minutes of whatever comes off the top of their head about the subject.

My responses to the first video:

The anti-gay marriage guy argues that gay people should have all the same rights as straight people, but these should be provided through separate institutions. If this isn't the very definition of "separate but equal" then I don't know what is. And as we've already established, "separate but equal" is an unconstitutional philosophy. If you have separate institutions, then even if all the tangible benefits and costs are the same, there are many intangible benefits and costs that can never be the same. Therefore separate but equal cannot be used as lip service for real equality of treatment, it is still discrimination.

The anti-gay marriage guy argues that the definition of marriage has never changed from this fundamental "one man and one woman" standard. This is false, and either he hasn't done his research properly, or he's flat out lying. The second biggest religion in the world doesn't forbid polygamy for a start, and indeed it wasn't until St Augustine that the biggest religion in the world started turning against it. There are many countries and cultures around the world right now where it's allowed, and some where it's positively encouraged. This "one man and one woman" is a definition of marriage that itself is a change from a previous definition, which itself was also a change from a definition before that. To cry sanctity when this mutable thing looks like changing again to try and prevent any further movement is just factually incorrect. As a societal and cultural institution, by definition marriage will change in it's nature as society changes.

Lastly, there is the argument that men and women are fundamentally different, in a way that black people and white people are not. Now, obviously we have different genitalia, but personally I can't think of any task, emotional, intellectual or physical, that could be completed by one gender and not the other (with the caveat of things inherent in the physical difference such as a man could not point to his own womb or a woman could not produce a cup of her own semen). Can you? The difference between the sexes is the result of culture and stereotyping more than it is to do with biological differences, girls are trained from an early age with dolls and kitchen type toys etc etc to be the homemakers, and boys are trained with toy guns and cars etc etc to be the aggressive provider types. And this is just one, very basic aspect of this social conditioning. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's what women's equality groups are constantly fighting against because it has been demonstrated when they do get into high corporate positions that women are just as capable as men, and indeed on the flipside that men can be just as good stay at home parents as women. The fundamental difference only exists in our culture, not in our essence or our capabilities.

My response to the second video (I might have got arguments mixed up between the two here but I'm trying to deal with them all so if I've put one against the wrong video then I'm sure you won't hold it against me):

There is the argument that the "ideal" family unit is husband, wife and kids. That kids do not get the same upbringing from straight and gay parents. That's absolutely true - kids don't get the same upbringing from straight and gay parents. Kids also don't get the same upbringing from straight and straight parents. My upbringing will have been very different to yours PS. I will have gained advantages, and suffered disadvantages, very different to the advantages and disadvantages you gained or suffered. Is that bad too? Should we advocate that only certain types of people should be allowed to be parents? I mean, addicts (of any description) generally make qualitatively worse (not just different, worse) parents than non-addicts. Does that mean that anyone with an addiction should be precluded from being a parent?

Add into this that apart from children who are home schooled and never left with daycare nurseries or similar, all children have a multitude of role models to look up to and emulate. Yes parents are very important role models for a child, but so are teachers, so are friends and siblings, so are people like youth workers that run kids sports clubs, so are religious authority figures, so are TV personalities or characters from books. I could go on and on with that list. A well rounded childhood means that you get exposed to the world, and the parents help guide you, but you also take influences from many other sources to help define who you become as you develop your own identity. A good parent will encourage this kind of healthy identity formation, and a bad parent won't (and a truly bad parent will force their own identity characteristics onto you against your will). That behaviour has nothing to do with the sexuality of the parent, a gay parent is just as capable of that as a straight parent is.

There seems to be a huge section of society stuck in that 1950s model of "mother, father, son, daughter, dog, cat, white picket fence" ideal. Yes that is a brilliant model if the relationships are all healthy within the group, but it's not the only model that works, and if the relationships are not healthy within that model then it's not especially immune to the problems inherent in any other model. To prescribe that this is the ONLY acceptable form of family unit, and by doing so to deny everyone who cannot live an emotionally healthy life inside a unit of that type a family life at all, is discrimination, and it's wrong. It would be like saying baseball is the only acceptable sport, and denying football fans sporting pleasure entirely just because they like something different to the norm.

This post is already an essay, so I'll stop there, but if I've missed a particular argument you wanted me to answer then bring it back up. In the meantime I haven't seen an answer from you to one of the key questions I asked. I'll rephrase it as I asked it several times in slightly different words in my last post:

"If you are not allowed to discriminate based on gender, as is established in the principles of law, how do you decide if Person X is legally allowed to marry the woman standing in front of you? Assume person X is deeply in love and totally committed to the woman, is above the age of legal consent, is fully mentally competent, is not related to the woman, and has never been married before."

[Phatscotty]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

It's wont affect married people. But married people are not the only people in society, which will change in many expected ways and unexpected ways.

So long as we do it at the state level, but we have to be willing to accept the vote won't always go our way.

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

It's wont affect married people. But married people are not the only people in society, which will change in many expected ways and unexpected ways.

So long as we do it at the state level, but we have to be willing to accept the vote won't always go our way.

Okay, state some real changes; otherwise, your argument is groundless.

[AndyDufresne]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

It's wont affect married people. But married people are not the only people in society, which will change in many expected ways and unexpected ways.

So long as we do it at the state level, but we have to be willing to accept the vote won't always go our way.

Okay, state some real changes; otherwise, your argument is groundless.

PS is right. Married people aren't the only people in society. I mean, what about people who use words that almost sound like marry or marriage? Will they be forced to adopt homosexual variations?

Chefs will be forced to gaymarinate.
Florists will be forced to grow gaymarigolds.
Drug enthusiasts will be forced to smoke gaymarijuana.
Women with the name mary will be forced to rename themselves gaymary.

The list goes on. We must not be forced to adopt these deviant deviations.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

It's wont affect married people. But married people are not the only people in society, which will change in many expected ways and unexpected ways.

So long as we do it at the state level, but we have to be willing to accept the vote won't always go our way.

Okay, state some real changes; otherwise, your argument is groundless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ments.html

France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

[BigBallinStalin]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

It's wont affect married people. But married people are not the only people in society, which will change in many expected ways and unexpected ways.

So long as we do it at the state level, but we have to be willing to accept the vote won't always go our way.

Okay, state some real changes; otherwise, your argument is groundless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ments.html

France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

How so? Did you read the article?

The draft law states that "marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender".

It says all references to "mothers and fathers" in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply "parents".

The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Derp, makes sense to change the wording in the civil code; otherwise, gay married couples wouldn't benefit from the laws concerning marriage. Derp derp derp.

Is this change deleterious in any serious way? No.

The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word "parents" would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

That interpretation is rubbish. It means that the wording in the laws will be changed--based on the previous excerpt. Marriage ceremonies != civil code, derp derp derp.

But let's assume that's true, which it has yet to be shown that it is, then that's not cool. Of course, who would enforce such a rule? If you were getting married to some woman in a catholic church, and the phrase "man and wife" was used--would the FBI/city police would rush in and bust you? (If you answer yes, don't you think it would be extremely easy for civil society to scale back that ridiculous kind of enforcement?).

In other words, is this change a de facto change? Nope.


And the rest of the article is logical fallacies, except for the inconsequential fact in the final paragraph.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... hurch.html

Gay Danish couples win right to marry in church
Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

[Phatscotty]

I still don't see how allowing gays to marry and to use that word "marriage" or "to marry" really changes things for straight, married couples.

It's wont affect married people. But married people are not the only people in society, which will change in many expected ways and unexpected ways.

So long as we do it at the state level, but we have to be willing to accept the vote won't always go our way.

Okay, state some real changes; otherwise, your argument is groundless.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ments.html

France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

How so? Did you read the article?

The draft law states that "marriage is a union of two people, of different or the same gender".

It says all references to "mothers and fathers" in the civil code – which enshrines French law – will be swapped for simply "parents".

The law would also give equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Derp, makes sense to change the wording in the civil code; otherwise, gay married couples wouldn't benefit from the laws concerning marriage. Derp derp derp.

Is this change deleterious in any serious way? No.

The move, which has outraged Catholics, means only the word "parents" would be used in identical marriage ceremonies for all heterosexual and same-sex couples.

That interpretation is rubbish. It means that the wording in the laws will be changed--based on the previous excerpt. Marriage ceremonies != civil code, derp derp derp.

But let's assume that's true, which it has yet to be shown that it is, then that's not cool. Of course, who would enforce such a rule? If you were getting married to some woman in a catholic church, and the phrase "man and wife" was used--would the FBI/city police would rush in and bust you? (If you answer yes, don't you think it would be extremely easy for civil society to scale back that ridiculous kind of enforcement?).

In other words, is this change a de facto change? Nope.


And the rest of the article is logical fallacies, except for the inconsequential fact in the final paragraph.

Well, they are going to try to remove the words mother and father from the civil code. The potential change is based on the "discrimination" against a child who does not have a mother (because they have 2 fathers) etc

Something similar happened in "Massachussets" with a father/daughter dance. Rather than deal with the law suit from one "offended" parent, the school decided to end the father/daughter dance instead

[BigBallinStalin]

If the law says, "a mother and father may do X," then that law won't apply to same-sex couples. Therefore, it's totally reasonable to change the wording of the law, so that it covers the now legalized types of married couples.

Again, still not seeing anything terrible about this. In fact, it makes complete sense.


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=189434&view=unread#p4144593
Right, that'll be battled out in the Church v. State, as were the Boy Scouts and Hooters suits. Given that Danish laws differ from American laws, I don't see how the state could regulate the churches on such matters.

So, what else do you have?

[crispybits]

I take it you mean Rhode Island, and that was done because a single parent complained, not a gay parent. It also wasn't based solely on the complaint that the daughter didn't have a father to take along, but that father daughter dances and mother son baseball games reinforced gender stereotyping, and this was the principle on whch the school actually took the decision.

Steven Brown, Executive Director of the Rhode Island ACLU also issued a statement in response to the controversy. Brown wrote in part, "The controversy that has suddenly arisen in a political campaign over father-daughter dances in Cranston is old news - the matter was amicably resolved with school officials over four months ago. And it was resolved for a simple reason: the school district recognized that in the 21st Century, public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games. This type of gender stereotyping only perpetuates outdated notions of 'girl' and 'boy' activities and is contrary to federal law."

http://articles.kwch.com/2012-09-18/fat ... e_33932908

And as for the Danish story, the priests who do not wish to marry gay people are not forced to do so, but the institution must provide someone who is willing to do so. As the portion who are not prepared to conduct these ceremonies is less than one third, I'd hardly call that a big deal. Besides which, in the US, churches have the right to refuse to marry anyone they want, and some traditionalist priests can and do refuse to marry couples who are already cohabiting, or where one spouse is not a member of their religion, or when one spouse is a divorcee, etc. There's a very clear opt-out that maybe just isnt there in Danish law (which still allows individuals to opt out by the way, just not the institution).

[Phatscotty]

good point Crispy. See I think we are getting closer to the real issue, which is "does gender matter in the realm of marriage" It always has, I think gender still matters. This isn't so much about same sex marriage as it is recognizing gender. I'm sure you call that "stereotyping", but let me ask ya...

Why do we have different bathrooms for men and women?

[crispybits]

We don't only have mens and womens - there are a fair number of places that have unisex too - including a lot of sports centres that have unisex changing areas with booths rather than single sex rooms.

It's another thing based on tradition - there isn't really a logical reason for it. There's people that express concern over safety (a psycho could hide in the bathroom and rape me) but that could happen in almost ay other place too, not just bathrooms, and surely having the chance of a man walk into the room while it's happening would act as a further deterrent to the prospective rapist. There's people that express concerns about differing hygeine needs, but then if you're locked away in a cubicle then who's going to know if you're dealing with some gender specific health issue anyway? There's women that say they don't want to be exposed to men's genitals at open urinals, but that's just a case of putting those urinals somewhere sensible and making sure the rest of the room can't see them. Can you give me a good reason, not easily dismissed like the three above (or just "ick - that's gross!") why bathroom facilities should be segregated?

[Woodruff]

Openminded Challenge #2

Dennis Prager gives a rational, unemotional, factual, conservative opinion on gay marriage, followed by an example of the opposing argument.

This is the same guy who started out the previous video with an outright factual lie about the history of marriage. Do you have a more credible source?

[Woodruff]

It is a matter of who do you love.

What's wrong with two consenting adults, who are related, being allowed to marry? I don't have a problem with it, and they didn't care in the ancient world. They aren't f*cking hurting me, so let them marry.

If you love two people, and they love each other and you, then why the hell can't you get married?... Nobody is being hurt. So it's nobody else's business.

"You can't make policy based on sympathy for the individual."

You can't make policy based on sympathy. Law would break down if it had to include every individual. Because there are so many sad cases that fall outside of the perimeter."

When no one is going to be hurt by the change in policy, but one person will be helped up, then yes, you do make policy for the individual. This is sorta what Civil Rights is all about. Why did we extend equal voting rights to minorities or women?

I dunno, this guy sounds like a simpleton to me.

Does stealing "hurt" anyone? how about embezzlement? How about a car-jacking?

You're comparing homosexual marriage to CRIMES? Here, we see the truth of Phatscotty's view of homosexual marriage. He thinks it should be a crime.

[Woodruff]

It's not. It's a legal contract. I've never understood why some people are legally allowed and even encouraged to get contracts, but other people are denied for no reason. And then that leads to denial for inheritance, insurance, and all sorts of crap that liberals have been fighting Conservatives over on the national level for 8 years now.

If you want a wedding, go to church.
If you want a marriage contract, go to court.
And since marriage is a contract, not a wedding... the involvement of the court makes it a civil rights issue.

Those things can and should be changed in the law, at a state level. Again, marriage does not need to be redefined in order to handle the inheritance issue, or even the hospital visitation issue.

They don't have to, that's certainly true. And yet, the likelihood of those things being changed is effectively nil. Therefore, the only appropriate action is to create equality within the law.

[Woodruff]

Also yes, stealing, carjacking, and embezzlement crimes all have victims.

Telling gay people that you wont let them get married because you don't approve of buttsex (presumably) is a crime against civil rights; making them the victim and you the oppressor. (hypothetically speaking)

Sure they are victims, but were they "harmed"? I think a lot of crime is committed based on the thought that nobody is harmed, so it's okay. Just know, that's a justification most popular amongst criminals or people who know they are doing something they shouldn't be doing.

You show what a disgusting individual you are by even making this comparison.

And nobody is telling people that gay people can't get married, as you like to frame it. The definition of marriage tells everyone that marriage is between one man and one woman.

That is YOUR definition of marriage. That is not THE definition of marriage.

You put so much emphasis that people are being hated on or that this is discrimination, but you don't realize that gay marriage has only first been legalized in the world in the year 2000.

This IS CLEARLY discrimination and no this is ABSOLUTELY NOT the first time it was legalized in the world.

Laws take a long time to change, you know that right? Do you also know that not everybody wants the same things you want? And that everyone doesn't see things the way you do?

Have you ever pointed this out to yourself?

And this isn't just simply a matter of law, like you guys like to emphasize. This is just as much a matter of culture if not more so, and you are trying to bulldoze an entire creed of people into changing what to many people is a very serious issue, perhaps the most serious of all issues, to them. Recognize that we are not trying to force anything, but that you are trying to force something.

Exactly the sort of thing that would have been stated during the Civil Rights Movement. I would have thought someone using the avatar of Martin Luther King, Junior would understand that.