Marriage Amendments....

[Phatscotty]

Can I make a reasonable reply to the points raised that differ from my opinion? Doesn't look like it.

Then I'll just go back to a previous, already thoroughly discredited point and take the argument round in another pointless circle in an effort to distract from the fact I already lost

An excerpt from "How to Debate", by Phatscotty

yeah, I'm sure you can keep up with 6 people way better than I can.

I was just posting a bunch of real-world consequences we have seen, for the record.

[dwilhelmi]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist resurrecting this gem here:

The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.

I would argue that both 1 and 3 are flawed in this case. The more accurate version is here:
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.

If we treat homosexual and heterosexual perfectly equal, then all restrictions for legally recognized marriage must be applied in all cases. If you wish to make the case that one of those restrictions should not be in place, that is fine, but that is not a matter of equal protection nor a constitutional given. That is why, in my opinion, gay marriage is so often compared with polygamy. "Opposite gender" is just as much an arbitrary restriction of marriage as "one other person" is. The first one could argue is "discriminatory" against homosexuals, while the second one could argue is "discriminatory" against monogamists.

You are being absurd , your examples assume that gender must be stipulated and it need not be.

No, I am assuming that gender is currently stipulated, not that it must be. If people would like to change marriage into a union between any two people, because they would like their type of union to be included also, hey great - lets have that discussion. However, that is not the discussion on the table.

Gender is a pivotal, integral part of the tradition of marriage. The very terms used in describing a wedding/marriage (husband,groom,bride,wife,etc) are gender based. It is a much deeper role than race is. Opposite genders is part of what marriage is - race is an additional restriction added after the fact, with no bearing on the proceedings themselves. It is different.

Gay marriage is a fundamentally different thing from traditional marriage. As a straight man, it is not possible for me to enter into a "gay marriage" with whomever I like, because a union between a man and a woman is not a "gay marriage" - that is not discrimination, it is definition.

[AndyDufresne]

Gay marriage is a fundamentally different thing from traditional marriage.

Is it really though?


--Andy

[MeDeFe]

the consequences of gay marriage passing will be felt in the coming gender redefinitions, all the way from marriage to boy and girl scouts

Ooooh... scary.

even so far as banning the words "mother" and "father". Sounds like families would be set to get sooooo much stronger!

Define "banning".

Or is it not rather the case that the legal language is being updated to reflect the reality that there are families with two parents of the same sex and the old dichotomy simply no longer holds true? Why yes, I think it is.

[dwilhelmi]

Gay marriage is a fundamentally different thing from traditional marriage.

Is it really though?


--Andy

Yes.

I cannot enter into a gay marriage with a woman. Not possible. It is a different thing.

There are similarities, to be sure. Perhaps even enough to make the argument that we should change marriage to include gay marriage under the same banner. It would be changing marriage, however. It is not a case of people excluding a group from an activity, it is a case of a group of people wanting to change an activity into something new. Allowing gay marriage would not be "allowing gay people to be married" as much as it would be "changing marriage to include homosexual unions".

[Phatscotty]

Gay marriage is a fundamentally different thing from traditional marriage.

Is it really though?


--Andy

gay marriage is a brand new thing. Just because a handful of places in the extremely recent past have just begun recognizing gay marriage. That does not mean it is set in stone for all humanity

American states, 1 by 1, have indeed decided marriage is between 1 man and one woman. The issue is over. Maybe you guys will have to kick it up and start teaching God is gay in kindergarten as opposed to second grade, and wait another generation for the results to come to fruition

[crispybits]

No, I am assuming that gender is currently stipulated, not that it must be. If people would like to change marriage into a union between any two people, because they would like their type of union to be included also, hey great - lets have that discussion. However, that is not the discussion on the table.

Gender is a pivotal, integral part of the tradition of marriage. The very terms used in describing a wedding/marriage (husband,groom,bride,wife,etc) are gender based. It is a much deeper role than race is. Opposite genders is part of what marriage is - race is an additional restriction added after the fact, with no bearing on the proceedings themselves. It is different.

Gay marriage is a fundamentally different thing from traditional marriage. As a straight man, it is not possible for me to enter into a "gay marriage" with whomever I like, because a union between a man and a woman is not a "gay marriage" - that is not discrimination, it is definition.

Actually, the term "marriage" comes from the old french word mariage, from marier ("to marry"), from Latin marito ("to marry", literally “give in marriage"), from maritus ("lover", "nuptial"), from mas ("male", "masculine", "of the male sex")

I don't see any etymological reason why marriage cannot be between two males there

[Phatscotty]

but this isn't only about marriage either...

[crispybits]

Gay marriage is a fundamentally different thing from traditional marriage.

Is it really though?


--Andy

Yes.

I cannot enter into a gay marriage with a woman. Not possible. It is a different thing.

There are similarities, to be sure. Perhaps even enough to make the argument that we should change marriage to include gay marriage under the same banner. It would be changing marriage, however. It is not a case of people excluding a group from an activity, it is a case of a group of people wanting to change an activity into something new. Allowing gay marriage would not be "allowing gay people to be married" as much as it would be "changing marriage to include homosexual unions".

You could, you'd just need an operation and a whole lot of hormone replacement therapy first.

Again, you couldn't have entered into an inter-racial marriage with a woman a couple hundred years back. That wouldn't have been possible either because the definition was that it wasn't allowed. Guess what, the definition got changed because the definition was found to be discriminatory.

[crispybits]

but this isn't only about marriage either...

You're right it's about one group of people trying to enforce their beliefs on a minority based mainly in the words in a magic book they believe is the word of a being they can't even prove exists, and by doing so using the secular legislature to deny that minority group rights given to everyone in that majority for hundreds of years.

[Metsfanmax]

I cannot enter into a gay marriage with a woman. Not possible. It is a different thing.

This is a tautology. You are assuming by construction that straight marriage and gay marriage are different, and then definitionally proving it. Not a real argument.

The right question is, is marriage (with no qualifier) between two straight people and marriage between two gay people functionally different? To answer this, one needs to look at actual characteristics of such marriages, and whether the legal contract and associated social relationship are necessarily exclusively different between the two cases.

[Metsfanmax]

the consequences of gay marriage passing will be felt in the coming gender redefinitions, all the way from marriage to boy and girl scouts

No, the gender redefinitions are coming whether or not gay marriage happens. People are slowly starting to realize that you can't just pigeonhole all people into one of two possible gender classes, and one possible sexual orientation class. The tide is coming. You can cover your ears and ignore it if you want, but that doesn't make it any less real. Our society is about respecting all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender, and even if it's going to take us a while to get equal legal rights for everyone, we're already starting to turn the tide on the ideological battle, which is really the most important part.

Unless your goal really is to whitewash all that and continue believing that it's the 1950s. Then, carry on.

[thegreekdog]

I cannot enter into a gay marriage with a woman. Not possible. It is a different thing.

This is a tautology. You are assuming by construction that straight marriage and gay marriage are different, and then definitionally proving it. Not a real argument.

The right question is, is marriage (with no qualifier) between two straight people and marriage between two gay people functionally different? To answer this, one needs to look at actual characteristics of such marriages, and whether the legal contract and associated social relationship are necessarily exclusively different between the two cases.

I have a quibble with this. Phatscotty is arguing about the definition of marriage as a government institution, not a religious one. Therefore, in order to answer your question he needs to answer whether a government-recognized marriage between two straight people and a government-recognized marriage betwen two gay people are functionally different. So, sorry, but I'm going to add a qualifier.

[Metsfanmax]

I cannot enter into a gay marriage with a woman. Not possible. It is a different thing.

This is a tautology. You are assuming by construction that straight marriage and gay marriage are different, and then definitionally proving it. Not a real argument.

The right question is, is marriage (with no qualifier) between two straight people and marriage between two gay people functionally different? To answer this, one needs to look at actual characteristics of such marriages, and whether the legal contract and associated social relationship are necessarily exclusively different between the two cases.

I have a quibble with this. Phatscotty is arguing about the definition of marriage as a government institution, not a religious one. Therefore, in order to answer your question he needs to answer whether a government-recognized marriage between two straight people and a government-recognized marriage betwen two gay people are functionally different. So, sorry, but I'm going to add a qualifier.

You're quite right, of course. That's not going to stop him from responding with a comment about religious marriage though

[Phatscotty]

but this isn't only about marriage either...

You're right it's about one group of people trying to enforce their beliefs on a minority based mainly in the words in a magic book they believe is the word of a being they can't even prove exists, and by doing so using the secular legislature to deny that minority group rights given to everyone in that majority for hundreds of years.

[Metsfanmax]

but this isn't only about marriage either...

You're right it's about one group of people trying to enforce their beliefs on a minority based mainly in the words in a magic book they believe is the word of a being they can't even prove exists, and by doing so using the secular legislature to deny that minority group rights given to everyone in that majority for hundreds of years.

Don't worry, you'll only have to suffer through Obama for another four years.

[AndyDufresne]

It's nice to see 4 decent outcomes for the marriage equality amendments. There was discussion that as the older electorates passes out of voting (I.E. dies), that those moving into the electorate don't see this as much of an issue facing the country. It'll be interesting to see.


--Andy

[MegaProphet]

It's nice to see 4 decent outcomes for the marriage equality amendments. There was discussion that as the older electorates passes out of voting (I.E. dies), that those moving into the electorate don't see this as much of an issue facing the country. It'll be interesting to see.


--Andy

I agree it was a step in the right direction

[Metsfanmax]

It's nice to see 4 decent outcomes for the marriage equality amendments. There was discussion that as the older electorates passes out of voting (I.E. dies), that those moving into the electorate don't see this as much of an issue facing the country. It'll be interesting to see.


--Andy

I agree it was a step in the right direction

Speaking of things that die, we can now wave goodbye to Phatscotty's argument that the people have never voted for same sex marriage.

inb4 "it's still 33-2"

[Symmetry]

It's nice to see 4 decent outcomes for the marriage equality amendments. There was discussion that as the older electorates passes out of voting (I.E. dies), that those moving into the electorate don't see this as much of an issue facing the country. It'll be interesting to see.


--Andy

I think that's a big part of it, but I also think that a fair part of the older electorate are seeing their kids and grandkids come out as gay. Don't underestimate the friends and family connection.

[Phatscotty]

We lost, fair and square. The people had a choice, and we made it. All I ever asked for.

[Phatscotty]

filling the void left by Woodruff I see....

PS, your position is filled with hypocrisy, and I think it's because you care not for states' rights or liberty but a singular vision of how marriage ought to be. In doing so you would toss aside the Constitution and the concept of equality and justice. You do not get to make this choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says in plain language that what you are trying to do is against the law. I don't care what your personal views on liberty are. This decision is not up to you; it has been made already. Therefore what you are trying to do is harmful to this nation. I know that's not what you're trying to do. But it is what is the end consequence of your narrow mindedness on this issue.

You should never be willing to sacrifice the principles upon which the country rests because they grate against your personal beliefs on how things should work. That is the antithesis of being a patriot.

Excellent post. Well done.

pfff. And you are treading on the first amendment Greekdog. Since you are all froggy, why don't you tell us how this doesn't infringe on our most basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, or our most basic principles, separation of church and state?

I don't know what froggy means.

Permitting state recognition of gay marriage does not infringe on any religious freedoms.

Requiring religious recognition of gay marriage DOES infring on religious freedoms. Please point me to the proposals that would require religions to recognize gay marriage.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is absurd.

Roman Catholic Firefighters Forced to Appear in Gay Pride Parade

Lawsuit claiming Constitutional rights violated, thrown out

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The Rhode Island Supreme Court has thrown out lawsuits brought by two Providence firefighters who said their constitutional rights were violated when they were ordered to drive a truck in a gay pride parade despite their religious objections.

The firefighters, Theodore Fabrizio and Stephen Deninno, argued that they are Roman Catholics and therefore do not support or condone homosexuality.

Justice William Robinson, writing for all five members of the high court this month, said the men appeared in the 2001 parade as public servants who were "relatively anonymous." He called it a legitimate work assignment.

"The respondents' appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part. Rather, it was simply the accomplishing of a task assigned to an engine company of the Providence Fire Department," Robinson wrote.

The two lawsuits, filed in 2004, were brought against former Mayor Buddy Cianci and James Rattigan, who was fire chief in 2001. The firefighters sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of their freedom of religion and speech.

The court said the men were assigned to work the parade because they served in an engine company that was closest to the parade route. They asked to be reassigned but were refused, according to their lawyer. They said that during and after the parade, they experienced sexual harassment from parade-goers and their co-workers.

A lawyer for the city told the court during arguments in September that the city sent trucks to various parades as a matter of course, including the Columbus Day parade, Purim parade and others.

After the September hearing, Cianci — who at the time was making an ultimately unsuccessful bid to reclaim the mayor's job he left in 2002 — complained about the glacial pace of the case before the court.

In his opinion, Robinson also made reference to the slow pace of the case, calling it a "jarndycean piece of litigation," an apparent reference to the fictional case Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the Charles Dickens novel "Bleak House," which drones on for so long and is so complicated that no one alive knows what it means.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-throws-fire ... 45135.html

[Metsfanmax]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

Phatscotty, two years later: Here's a legal case about a gay pride parade. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, but since it involves fags it's fair game I guess.

[Dukasaur]

Nessus Mining Station
Red-hot iron, white-hot iron, cold-black iron; an iron taste,
and iron smell, and a Babel of iron sounds.

-- Charles Dickens,
Bleak House, Datalinks

[Phatscotty]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

Phatscotty, two years later: Here's a legal case about a gay pride parade. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, but since it involves fags it's fair game I guess.

so, whats your take on why 1st amendment rights were not upheld?
what's your take that firefighters were forced against their will to embrace what is against their religion? Do you see anything wrong here at all?


ya see, Greek's take was that citizens will still have rights, and that no religious people or religious institutions would be forced to do things, like marching down the street in a parade showing support for things, that go against their religion.

And I'm glad in what you probably believe was an intelligent post by yourself here you are saying that gay marriage and gay pride have nothing to do with each other....

So, Mets, what do you think is the #1 thing the gay community is proud about and celebrates in the streets?

thanks for playing