If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[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.

[Woodruff]

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

You've already ignored the points made regarding this. Why do you keep bringing it up as if it is a valid point when you ignore the counterpoints to it?

[Woodruff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.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.

Why is it that examples from other countries are valid WHEN YOU LIKE THEM, but examples from other countries are invalid when they have to do with something you don't like, for instance socialized medicine? You can't have it both ways, hypocrite...so that's Denmark and we're the United States and that wouldn't work here. Your standard socialized medicine argument.

[Woodruff]

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

Similar thing? That was because of a single parent, not because of a homosexual couple. But its nice of you to lump in that complaint as if it were.

[Woodruff]

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.

Again, gender HAS NOT always mattered. You keep saying this, and yet it's not true. You are willfully lying in order to further your own discrimination.

This isn't so much about same sex marriage as it is recognizing gender. I'm sure you call that "stereotyping"

In your case, I call it bigotry.

Why do we have different bathrooms for men and women?

Thoroughly irrelevant to the issue. Why do you try to distract from the actual topic every time you get cornered and don't want to answer? Stop being a coward.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

So basically, your argument has been reduced to "marriage should remain unchanged cuz traditional marriage is between one man and one woman."

That's a good logical fallacy.

[Juan_Bottom]

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?

Exactly like the issue of Slavery; states simply aren't competent enough to handle civil rights without some federal intervention.

I wouldn't drag Webster into this, or we Libs will start arguing "changing definitions is so complex" for abortion and sh*t. And Marriage means contract.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Somewhere between 3 and 4 million Americans identify themselves as Homosexual. But I don't see the relevance of that number. As Rachel Maddow said "Here's the thing about Civil Rights, you don't get to vote on them; That's why they're called Rights."

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.

Yes they have been harmed.
Your compelling argument for why Gay Americans do not deserve equal rights is that no one is physically harming them and Americans don't feel ready to extend equality to Gays?

[Phatscotty]

How is marriage a right again? even a civil right?

[crispybits]

You going round in circles now Scotty? Equality is a right, and this is about equality, not marriage, when talking about rights.

Are you ever going to answer the question I've asked at least 3-4 times now?

[tzor]

Why do we have different bathrooms for men and women?

The basic reason is to provide some sort of protection for women specifically against the possibility of rape. The implications of this is exceptionally deep and penetrate the culture at a number of levels. For example, women are more "social" in terms of bathroom necessity; when a guy has to go, he goes, but when a gal has to go she and her friends all go together. Note that when stalls are replaced by real rooms that can be locked and prevent people from looking around as they would a stall, "unisex" bathrooms become more common (as in the Modern restaurant in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC) and handicapped restrooms are often unisex.

Mind you, in the modern society where the single parent (or the married parent whose spouse is not at the same location) the existence of a parent / small child relationship of opposite gender often causes the segregated system to be strained, especially when you might not want to trust the child alone in the restroom.

[Phatscotty]

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?

Because genitalia are "private" parts, especially to the opposite sex. We separate the genders because there are profound differences, and many of the differences have been built into our cultural infrastructure, not to mention religion. It's just not something that you get to change based on some interpretation of discrimination based on gender, which not only applies to marriage but also to bathrooms, junior-high school locker rooms, boy scouts/girl scouts, ends formal dress codes for school dances all across the country...there are literally a thousands ways besides marriage saying that gender doesn't matter will have an impact.

Civil union with same benefits and recognition as marriage is the way to go imo. I think that's where American consensus is now, and we can all be happy and equal and stop fighting about a word. A new path needs to be blazed, but we don't have to fundamentally transform society in ways that 90% of people aren't even thinking about in order to do that.

Just consider the implications of doing it your way is all, and how yes that does affect everybody else