Conquer Club

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.

thegreekdog wrote:

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.

I find these arguments very thinly veiled attempts to bring in some poor arguments from the anti-gay marriage side.

1) Suggesting recognizing gay marriage is gov't overreach
2) Unreasonable fear-mongering about straight marriage being seen as less, or having rights taken away
3) Equating it with other issues like polygamy or bestiality

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

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.

I find these arguments very thinly veiled attempts to bring in some poor arguments from the anti-gay marriage side.

1) Suggesting recognizing gay marriage is gov't overreach
2) Unreasonable fear-mongering about straight marriage being seen as less, or having rights taken away
3) Equating it with other issues like polygamy or bestiality

Why would I bring in (or want to bring in) arguments from the anti-gay marriage side?

In any event:

(1) I'm suggesting all marriage regulation is government overreach.
(2) I'm not fear-mongering because I'm married and don't care if my "rights" (because, really, they aren't rights) are taken away.
(3) I'm not equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway anyone on gay marriage. I'm equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway people on polygamy. I want polygamy to be legal. I think polygamy should be legal. I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy.

(1) Is, by your own admission, unrealistic and therefore an irrational position unless you can overcome the objections. By your example about the person in that hospital being my long term girlfriend, if the decision is to have a 30% survival rate and be able to have kids in future, or a 95% survival rate and no chance of kids in future, then how long do I need to have been with her to make that kind of decision? 1 year? 5 years? 2 weeks? Where is the line arbitrarily drawn in law as a blanket point of true commitment for every relationship? Or should there be a contract people can willingly enter into that forms the line?

(2) Because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. To take away existing rights you have to provide a good argument for taking them away. The argument has already been had about whether they should be granted and they were granted. That's not set in stone, but to withdraw them again you need a decent argument why it should happen.

(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm not equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway anyone on gay marriage. I'm equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway people on polygamy. I want polygamy to be legal. I think polygamy should be legal. I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy.

I'm with you there. Polygamy is another bogeyman that we need to stop handwringing over.

1) Recognition, not regulation.
2) You know that many do. It's a key argument for the anti-gay marriage side that it would lessen existing marriages.
3) bull, you can already marry as many people as you want without the government recognizing it as marriage.

Frigidus wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm not equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway anyone on gay marriage. I'm equating gay marriage with polygamy to sway people on polygamy. I want polygamy to be legal. I think polygamy should be legal. I'm in favor of legalizing polygamy.

I'm with you there. Polygamy is another bogeyman that we need to stop handwringing over.

Polyandry too. The women deserve theirs too!


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

premio53 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

#1. It's spelled bestiality, but please continue to post.
--Andy

I reject your stance. "Bestiality" is offensive against those who possess the quality of being the best.

"Beastiality" from now on.

thegreekdog wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This issue confuses me.

I hold to traditional Catholic values (which are much like traditional Christian values). I also believe that gay marriage should be permitted by the government. And that's ultimately what I don't understand.

Most, if not all, traditional Christians in the U.S. would rail against a Muslim theocracy and yet they would propose a Christian theocracy in the United States. There is a distinct, clear difference between one's religion permitting gay marriage and one's government permitting gay marriage. While it may be bigoted to have a vocal intolerance of a particular religion, it is certainly not bigoted to be intolerant of that religion's imposing of its values on the government. Hell, it's American to be intolerant of a religion imposing its values through government!

Because nobody is talking about making laws permitting or not permitting it, just about giving it certain legal recognition. You can disagree with their beliefs about what the consequences of that would be, but to keep switching it for the other is a deceptive attempt to maneuver the opposition into defending something they don't support.

For the record, I am not accusing you of being deceptive, but rather I am saying that your statement is a result of being a victim of the deception. By constantly changing the definitions in this way, they confuse and bully you into fearing that to follow up on your belief, it would be the injustice you described.

Ah HA! I'm well aware of the deception (although I wouldn't call it that). I want there to be no legal recognition of any marriages.

But if there is to be legal recognition of marriage, the refusal to recognize gay marriage is theocratical in nature. Is theocractical a word? If it's not, then patent pending.

You could settle for "theocratic," but you may earn more points using "theocratical" in the courts.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

premio53 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Premio's definition of flaunting still seems to suggest any person engaging in any activity in public is deemed to be "flaunting."

Thus, we must stand up against these flaunters, like the dog walkers who walk their dogs in public. Flaunting their non-bestiality bestiality in the faces of all those who do not own dogs.


--Andy

If you are too stupid to know what beastiality is then please don't post.

#1. It's spelled bestiality, but please continue to post.
--Andy

I reject your stance. "Bestiality" is offensive against those who possess the quality of being the best.

"Beastiality" from now on.

IS this a game of one-ups-manship? Are you trying to bestiality me? (P.S. the last sentence makes a good out of context quote, for the out of context quote topic)


--Andy

crispybits wrote:I think you just gave me a little bit of crap for the Kate Beckinsale thing

And yes we can all have "ideal world" views, but if those views are flawed then others have every right to ask what you would do about X or Y in your ideal world without being accused of giving you shit. If it truly is an "ideal" type solution then there will be workarounds that could be come up with. I might well be open to the government getting out of marriage, but there are a lot of big problems with it that make it unworkable. If someone can propose an alternative that solves those problems then I might well take up arguing for it myself if I am convinced.

Sure, here's one:

Two people sign a contract, stating that they are together, thus are open to the disclosing of private personal information (e.g. the hospital situation).

If you want, have a judge stamp his approval on it, or eventually through common law, this form of contract would become an acceptable substitute for certain rights of which marriage contracts enjoy the privilege.


Furthermore, ideas influence institutions*, some of which are controlled by the government. Therefore, if enough people accept TGD's ideas on marriage (i.e. no more government benefits), then that'll have more influence on those institutions.

The concept of liberal democracy was born through ideas. In the human realm, if you don't have the idea to do X, then (in nearly all cases**) X most likely won't happen.



*"institutions" are generally described as "rules of the game."

**There's debatable examples I'm thinking of, but they aren't relevant to this topic.

But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.

crispybits wrote:(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.

The problem with polygamy is similar to why bastardy was a problem in the past... too many kids without firm support. Today, we have both men and women having many kids that they cannot support, though the numbers of children women can have are inherently limited by nature and those a man can have not.

If polygamy is allowed, society would need it to be tied to support of children. That would open a dangerous pandoras box for all who have children (including, by-the-way homosexual unions). Easier to disallow polygamy than to regulate it appropriately.

Homosexuality bears no such threat. The only "threat" of homosexuality is allowing a very private behavior which some people dislike.

Symmetry wrote:1) Recognition, not regulation.
2) You know that many do. It's a key argument for the anti-gay marriage side that it would lessen existing marriages.
3) bull, you can already marry as many people as you want without the government recognizing it as marriage.

(1) No, regulation.
(2) Okay. So?
(3) Sure.

I'm trying to understand... are you suggesting that I'm not in favor of gay marriage? I'm confused as to how you come to that conclusion. I agree that gay marriage should be legal, but disagree (with you) on the way we get there. With respect to this issue, in particular, how we get there is less important than getting there.

crispybits wrote:But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.

Again, what's the convincing case that the government should not GTFO? At some point in history, the government was not involved in marriage; at some point in history, that changed (based primarily, I think, on the influence of Christianity on the government of the United States).

The only reason my opinion is unreasonable is because it's easier to have the government involvement that we currently have. It would be difficult to undo what's already been done. I happen to think that's a shitty reason.

crispybits wrote:(1) Is, by your own admission, unrealistic and therefore an irrational position unless you can overcome the objections. By your example about the person in that hospital being my long term girlfriend, if the decision is to have a 30% survival rate and be able to have kids in future, or a 95% survival rate and no chance of kids in future, then how long do I need to have been with her to make that kind of decision? 1 year? 5 years? 2 weeks? Where is the line arbitrarily drawn in law as a blanket point of true commitment for every relationship? Or should there be a contract people can willingly enter into that forms the line?

Unrealstic because it wouldn't happen; not unrealistic because it couldn't happen. As to your example, why is the line arbitrarily drawn at marriage? What makes you think marrige is a truly committed relationship?

crispybits wrote:(2) Because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. To take away existing rights you have to provide a good argument for taking them away. The argument has already been had about whether they should be granted and they were granted. That's not set in stone, but to withdraw them again you need a decent argument why it should happen.

They aren't rights dude. There are no "marriage rights." Stop referring to them as rights. When you refer to them as rights you give them a status that those items do not have. I've made a decent argument why it shouldn't happen. The way that those contractual relaitonships and benefits are currently defined, two people who are of the same gender who are in a relationship, more than two people who are in a relationship, and within the last century, two people who are of different races, could not enjoy those benefits. Would it be harder to take them away? Yes. I think it would be better to take them away. I like BBS's idea.

crispybits wrote:(3) I have no problem with polygamy so I'm with you there, the silly comparisons are bestiality or peadophilia. Informed adults of sound mind should be allowed to make contracts with other informed adults of sound mind in any way they like, as long as all parties know the marital status of all other parties then I see nothing wrong with someone having 100 marriage contracts with different people. The only criticism is that if I had 2 wives and they disagree on something while I'm in a coma or whatever there needs to be rules drafted around which one takes priority.

I agree. Symm's argument is that because so many people think polygamy is "ew gross" then likening it to gay marriage denigrates gay marriage. Rick Santorum (a conservative Republican politician) once linked gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality. He was (and is, I'm pretty sure) an idiot. I think that's where Symm gets his uproar over polygamy. That and he can point to statistics about abusive relationships and polygamy (much like premio points to AIDS as why gays shouldn't get married).

crispybits wrote:But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.

I apologize for not writing a 50-page contract.[/sarcasm] I'll get TGD to hammer one out immediately.

Crispybits, I always enjoy your posts, but I think you've dug yourself into a trench here. (A) I provided the essentials of an example which undermines your position. All you've done so far is arbitrarily raise your standards. How much higher will you raise them? To the standard of a 50-page "duckroll ducks in a row" contract?

(B) Furthermore, my post contained more than one line; the rest complemented my essential example. You're overlooking it doesn't refute my position, so perhaps I can expand on one point: "eventually through common law, this form of contract would become an acceptable substitute for certain rights of which marriage contracts enjoy the privilege." I don't have to design that 50-page contract---other people can. This is one insight of spontaneous order theory. The plans of individuals may lead to outcomes which were not intentionally designed from the beginning. Concerned individuals have the incentive to improve a contract which covers all of your concerns. Over time, this can get accomplished.

(C) Finally, I'm fine with throwing out the "must design the perfect marriage contract" discussion here. The more important point about this entire debate is the role of ideas. I agree with you that ideas should be well-defended, but given that (1) this is an online forum and not a workshop for writing 300-page books, and (2) I'm facing arbitrarily rising standards which ignore other points, would you like to refill the holes in your argument? If not, why don't we talk about the influence of ideas?

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.

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. 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.

It's not at all irrational to push for more fundamental changes against one's government. They can be ideally held positions while marginal adjustments toward the ideal can be advocated--but that doesn't make the ideal position irrational nor unreasonable in any manner. Some may even prefer the faster adjustments, and this may work in some cases (e.g. Hurricane Katrina clearing out the shitty public schools and allowing for the rise of charter schools).

thegreekdog wrote:

crispybits wrote:But the idea needs to be more formed than a one liner, and have the ducks lined up a lot better than that to counter criticisms. Like I said if a proper case can be put forward then I'm open to convincing, but just to say "the government should GTFO isn't a convincing case.

Again, what's the convincing case that the government should not GTFO? At some point in history, the government was not involved in marriage; at some point in history, that changed (based primarily, I think, on the influence of Christianity on the government of the United States).

In the US things changed for the worse during WW1, the government-inflated 1920s, and Hoover and Roosevelt's New Deals. The government conditioned people slowly over time--probably without intending to, and now we have a bunch of crap to show for it.

These state interventions should be rejected more often, and I'm fine with one-liners. Not everyone can produce the great works which influence countries, but they can at least contribute their part--however lengthy or brief it may be. Disparaging against that, as some have done ITT, is amusing. I wish they held such standards to themselves whenever one of them advocated for government intervention.

[jokingly]

tl;dr --- double-standard motherfuckahs!

[/jokingly]

AndyDufresne wrote:I think I'm going to need to hop into the Chamber of Understanding.

It's simple, replace ideal conditions for adoption with "can I buy a big gulp?"

It's even simpler than that, since just because you have collected one set of "facts" (based on one set of "evidence") doesn't mean that there doesn't exist another set of facts (based on more "evidence") that contradicts those facts. Few things in life are cut and dried.

Firstly BBS, the one liners thing was about TGD's statement that the government should GTFO of marriage, but when asked how we overcome other problems he doesn't have any real proposals. Not your post. And yes it's fine that some people can throw out one liners, I'm not judging posts based on length, but if I am to be convinced that an idea is sound, then the objections do have to be overcome by someone at some point. Currently, based on the one liner, I am not convinced and I'm not going to spend any time or energy trying to improve an idea I do not believe is workable without massive upheaval that outweighs any benefits gained. If someone can make the case and deal with the objections, I'm open to that and could be convinced if a good case is made. (I also know that convincing me personally is irrelevant, but if change is going to be made then people are going to need to be convinced at some point)

Your idea of a common law contract sounds to me pretty similar to the "they can have marriage as long as they don't call it marriage" bigotry coming out of some religious sources about the gay marriage debate. We have a suitable contract now, and a minority is trying to prevent another minority from being allowed access to it. To have a 2 tier system of marriage and your common law contract under different names, even if the legalities are identical, is something that leaves the door wide open for discrimination. Names matter. (note I'm not saying you are bigoted, just that the idea sounds similar to a flawed one that religious groups propose)

TGD, you didn't answer the question. How long do I have to be with someone for the arbitrary line to be drawn that I can decide that 65% improved survival chance is preferable to them not ever having kids? I would contend that being married is a deliberate, planned and well thought out (in most cases) act by two people that serves as a very convenient way to make legal distinctions like this. Obviously there are exceptions, especially in Las Vegas, but generally people getting married is intended by those people as a social, legal and spiritual commitment. It's a line in the sand. If we do away with that line, where do we now draw the new one?

The only case I've made is that gay and straight marriage should be treated equally in every way, including in the name they are called. When people have criticised that position I have defended it. When people propose other positions, then if I am to keep an open mind it is inevitable that I will both come up with questions for clarification and problems I foresee with application of those positions to real life situations. That's not double standards, because I don't deny anyone else the opportunity to do the same to my position. I'm not expecting a fully codified legal document ready to go into the legislation books, but I do expect that if someone proposes something they should be willing to explain it, and tell me how it would work better than what we have now.

crispybits wrote:the one liners thing was about TGD's statement that the government should GTFO of marriage, but when asked how we overcome other problems he doesn't have any real proposals.

To be fair, I was fine with your one-liners. I'm a little frustrated because I've hashed all this out before in other threads, that's all.

crispybits wrote:Your idea of a common law contract sounds to me pretty similar to the "they can have marriage as long as they don't call it marriage" bigotry coming out of some religious sources about the gay marriage debate.

We actually do not have a suitable contract now precisely because gays aren't permitted to marry and gays aren't permitted to marry. And why aren't gays allowed to participate in that contractual relationship with each other? Because government decides who is permitted to engage in that contractual relationship and the government has decided that gays are not permitted to engage in that contractual relationship. Your solution is to petition the government to permit gays to engage in that contract. My position is to do away with the government regulation of the contract itself. The end result, for gays, is the same. The end result for polygamists and polyandrists and people that aren't married traditionally is not the same; in fact their "rights" (as you put it) are still violated.

crispybits wrote:TGD, you didn't answer the question. How long do I have to be with someone for the arbitrary line to be drawn that I can decide that 65% improved survival chance is preferable to them not ever having kids? I would contend that being married is a deliberate, planned and well thought out (in most cases) act by two people that serves as a very convenient way to make legal distinctions like this. Obviously there are exceptions, especially in Las Vegas, but generally people getting married is intended by those people as a social, legal and spiritual commitment. It's a line in the sand. If we do away with that line, where do we now draw the new one?

I don't know the answer; it depends upon your contractual relationship with the person. I should certainly not be the one deciding that. And I contend that the government shouldn't decide it either, certainly not with something arbitrary like marriage. And I say arbitratry because, right now, marriage is between one man and one woman. No one else can have the same contractual relationship.

As to the rest, you don't really answer my points, you just keep saying "you're not explaining it well enough." Hell, BBS laid out an alternative and you've yet to test the validity of it in any way. Hell, I indicated the problem with assuming that the marriage contract is the best alternative a number of times in this thread. It seems like you've made up your mind already, so I do take umbrage with the idea that you "don't deny anyone else the opportunity to do the same to my position." Clearly I've explained my position in depth.

Then link to the other post / thread where you've explained it, I don't read or fully remember every post on every thread. If what you're saying is already said then save yourself the trouble of typing it out again. I've no objection to reading somewhere else why you think the idea can work if certain other conditions are met, but "I've already been through this" doesn't explain in any way why you think my objections to the idea aren't well founded.

The proposal to come up with an alternative contract either creates a two-tier system that is still open for discrimination, or you're abolishing something then replacing it with something functionally identical (except it's open to all). Why not just open the current contract to all? Why would you deolish a building to rebuild the same building but with lifts and wheelchair ramps for disabled access, when you can simply adapt the current building by adding lifts and wheelchair ramps? In the light of other responses, as I said, it can also appear to be a bit sour grape-y, "well if marriage isn't what we say it is then nobody can have it at all", not that you mean it that way at all, but it can appear to be the equivalent of a kid losing a game taking it's ball home so nobody can play any more.

So the reason you say marriage is arbitrary is because it's discriminatory? I'm not having a go at all with this, I'm just genuinely trying to understand why this massive upheaval to the current system is preferable to simply opening out the availability of the current system to everyone. The vast majority of people view marriage as a big commitment to another person for life. That's not arbitrary, that's a decision by two pople to enter a contractual relationship. That is what is absent with simply being a long term couple or room-mates or friends or whatever. If that is open to all then there's nothing arbitrary about it at all, it's a very well defined legal and social declaration that you give this other person the right to make decisions like better survival chance vs having kids or whatever if the need arises. If you define that as arbitrary then every commercial contract is arbitrary, there's no point to it and companies should just send each other stuff and hope that the other lot pay for it on time.

Apart from denying that marriage rights exist (and whatever you say they do exist, and they are rights, as it stands right now, someone can sue the government if one of those rights is not upheld), and saying that marriage is arbitrary (as above) I haven't seen you making any points. I ignored the first one because it's just you stating that it should be X when it's Y, which is irrelevant, and I'm asking questions about the second one because all I see you replacing the contract with is something even more arbitrary, which I don't understand how that's supposed to be an improvement. Because you disagree with the decision to get involved in the first place isn't a good reason to get uninvolved now when systems have been built up around it. What you need now is to lay out the good reasons why, instead of just making the current system non-discriminatory we should tear the whole thing apart and then replace it with something retty much functionally identical to itself. I just don't see how that argument makes sense.

crispybits wrote:Firstly BBS, the one liners thing was about TGD's statement that the government should GTFO of marriage, but when asked how we overcome other problems he doesn't have any real proposals. Not your post. And yes it's fine that some people can throw out one liners, I'm not judging posts based on length, but if I am to be convinced that an idea is sound, then the objections do have to be overcome by someone at some point. Currently, based on the one liner, I am not convinced and I'm not going to spend any time or energy trying to improve an idea I do not believe is workable without massive upheaval that outweighs any benefits gained. If someone can make the case and deal with the objections, I'm open to that and could be convinced if a good case is made. (I also know that convincing me personally is irrelevant, but if change is going to be made then people are going to need to be convinced at some point)

Your idea of a common law contract sounds to me pretty similar to the "they can have marriage as long as they don't call it marriage" bigotry coming out of some religious sources about the gay marriage debate. We have a suitable contract now, and a minority is trying to prevent another minority from being allowed access to it. To have a 2 tier system of marriage and your common law contract under different names, even if the legalities are identical, is something that leaves the door wide open for discrimination. Names matter. (note I'm not saying you are bigoted, just that the idea sounds similar to a flawed one that religious groups propose)

lolwat

You asked "HOW CAN THIS BE DONE??!!" so I explained the process. Things don't need to be planned a prior for you to accept them--if you understand how things work....

crispybits wrote:TGD, you didn't answer the question. How long do I have to be with someone for the arbitrary line to be drawn that I can decide that 65% improved survival chance is preferable to them not ever having kids? I would contend that being married is a deliberate, planned and well thought out (in most cases) act by two people that serves as a very convenient way to make legal distinctions like this. Obviously there are exceptions, especially in Las Vegas, but generally people getting married is intended by those people as a social, legal and spiritual commitment. It's a line in the sand. If we do away with that line, where do we now draw the new one?

The only case I've made is that gay and straight marriage should be treated equally in every way, including in the name they are called. When people have criticised that position I have defended it. When people propose other positions, then if I am to keep an open mind it is inevitable that I will both come up with questions for clarification and problems I foresee with application of those positions to real life situations. That's not double standards, because I don't deny anyone else the opportunity to do the same to my position. I'm not expecting a fully codified legal document ready to go into the legislation books, but I do expect that if someone proposes something they should be willing to explain it, and tell me how it would work better than what we have now.

So you're backing away from the whole "50-page contract" standard?

Okay, trying to be more organized here, so bear with me. I'll start with what I think are the easiest points first.

(1) My complaining has little to do with you and more to do with having to either find what I typed before or retype it. My preference is retyping. Further, I was more interested in convincing premio that he was a theocrat than having this debate with you and/or Symmetry, which was what the original whining was about (on my part).

(2) The benefits associated with marriage are absolutely not rights. If the government took away the ability for a spouse to make a life decision on behalf of his or her wife or husband, there is no recourse for the spouse. If the government decided tomorrow to legislatively determine that spouses could not make life decisions on behalf of spouses, Husband X couldn't petition the court to reverse the new legislation under any constitutional principles. Rights (with some very few exceptions, benefits springing from marriage is not one of them) exist as a result of the Constitution and violations of such rights must be brought under constitutional principles. I can name a number of examples from your list that are simply not rights by any stretch of the imagination - the ability to file a joint income tax return; the ability to share in the deceased spouse's property (each state has a different rule); alimony payments. These are not rights, they are benefits or privileges granted by the government based upon the government-recognized status of two people and their contract with each other. If the government were to take away any of those benefits, they would not be taking away rights.

(3) Your example of building a new building versus installing wheelchair ramps is a good one and will help me with my illustration (or at least make you understand where I'm coming from). From a political theory standpoint, I'm essentially a constitutional libertarian. I believe that the U.S. federal government is only permitted to regulate and control that which it is expressly permitted to regulate and control by the U.S. Constitution. By providing regulations and benefits associated with the contract of marriage, apart from the benefits that marriage grants as a contract in and of itself, the government is overstepping its bounds from a constitutional perspective and from the perspective of my own expectations of the government. For me, marriage is a religious institution (Catholic in my circumstance). It is a religious contract (for lack of a better phrase). For some it may be a love contract. For others it may be a business contract. Or it could be some combination of those things. In any event, the government recognition, regulation, and provision of benefits with respect to marriage is one element of a host of other items that I do not believe the government should do.

So let's take your building example. The building you reference (marriage) is one of 5,000 buildings sitting in a town that is meant to house 5 buildings. I want to tear down that marriage building and 4,994 other buildings because the town was not meant to fit, nor should it fit, 5,000 buildings. Putting a ramp onto the marriage building is not going to do the job for me.

Furthermore, and unrelated, allowing gays to marry is like putting a ramp on the building and then not putting braille on the signs. The building is still going to be exclusionary of other groups that may want to enjoy the benefits of the building, but cannot precisely because the building exists as it currently exists. Marriage benefits as they currently exist (i.e. as a grant of the government) are ripe for being able to exclude certain groups of people, which is why, as I've indicated before, blacks and whites couldn't get married and gays can't get married. The Constitution ostensibly should correct this problem but our court system is at the mercy of the whims of the general public, in the same way as the legislature. Ultimately, gay marriage will not be acceptable federally unless a majority (or more) of the people in the country think it's okay. That is anathema to my vision of what the government should be. The only reason the majority, Congress, the president, and the courts can refuse to give benefits or federal recognition of gay marriage is because marriage is regulated and benefits are determined by the government. If the government didn't regulate or benefit marriage, the problem would not exist. As part of a larger effort, on my part, to shrink the role of federal government to its constitutionally acceptable levels while also, necessarily (necessarily I say!) letting people retain the most freedom, I would do away with the institution of marriage as a government-recognized institution.

thegreekdog wrote: Further, I was more interested in convincing premio that he was a theocrat than having this debate with you and/or Symmetry, which was what the original whining was about (on my part).

I was more interested in this too. Lets get back to that.


--Andy