Symmetry wrote:As the benefits and recognition of straight marriage being removed is unrealistic, tying it to arguments for gay marriage seems misleading. As if you want to introduce the idea of harm to current married couples.
What's next? Equating gay marriage with polygamy?
Polygamy, if religiously oriented, has the added benefit of being protected by the first amendment. So yeah, polygamy is equal to gay marriage in that both are largely illegal and carry some societal bugaboos. I understand that disagreeing with polygamy is more acceptable to you, while disagreeing with gay marriage is not; but that's okay, you'll come around much like I think premio will come around on gay marriage.
crispybits wrote:It's a list of rights you have in dealing with the world as a couple. Not a list of things you can do or that the government lets you do, but a list of things you have the right to do. I can make a medical decision about anyone right now, walk into a hospital and say "cut the leg off to save his life", but that doesn't mean I have any right to make that decision. And the hospital staff will ignore me/ask me to leave if I try unless I am either a close family member or married to whoever I'm talking about.
Why? What if it was your long-time girlfriend?
crispybits wrote:There are very many things on that list that are impossible not because the government "has it's talons in marriage", but because they are simply impractical. If you've gone on a couple of dates with someone are you then within your rights to demand immigration to their country? If you live in the same apartment as someone for a few weeks do you have the right to make important medical decisions for them if they are in a coma? Basically any form of acquaintance with anyone could be used as a basis for any of the things on that list unless a line is drawn somewhere, and a lot of the things on that list are very good things to grant to people in stable and long term relationships who conciously want the relationship legally recognised by the state for those reasons. Therefore there needs to be some sort of state recognised contract to allow that level of commitment.
Why should you have those rights when you're married? Why does marriage hold the same contractual rights and obligations as, say, a mother-daughter relationship? A married couple do not spring from the same familial tree. Our society (ours) has constructed this contractual relationships of marriage and attached to it certain benefits and responsibilities. There does not NEED to be a state contract. There does not NEED to be anything. Right now, society finds it preferable that there is a state contract. It makes things easier.
crispybits wrote:Or you need to overcome the objections in another way, or abandon an irrational position for a more rational one, because continuing to hold an irrational position (and you yourself admit it's irrational) doesn't contribute to the debate any more than premio's insane theocratic rambling does.
I have abandoned my position for one that is supportive of equality. I think gay marriage should be legalized. My position is not irrational, it is perfectly rational. I have never called my position irrational. My position is not realstic because it would cause societal upheaval or at least it would make a lot of people very uncomfortable and would be less likely to succeed in achieving the intended result (namely, that gay marriage is legalized).
And premio's position is not insane. There are billions of people who think the same thing he does. I would call his position wrong and I would call him intolerant. But, the problem is not insantiy (or even irrationality - Frigidus pointed out that premio's position is rational in premio's world), the problem with premio's position is that it's a theocratic position and one that cannot supported by U.S. constitutional principles. If premio lived in Iran, for example, his position would be celebrated. His position is a problem in the United States.