Conquer Club

Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:46 pm

thegreekdog wrote: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.


State recognition of marriage contracts is just like state recognition of business contracts or state recognition of any other form of contract. If you remove the state recognition then you remove all protection for people breaking that contract and walking away with no comeback. And there are many reasons other than just "we want to call ourselves married". There's mutual assets, medical/legal power of attorney in emergencies, immigration rights, child custody/visitation rights, joint tax filing, insurance legalities, the list goes on and on.

Can I ask an honest question greekdog. Before you considered gay marriage as an issue, did you have the same thoughts about the government "getting out of marriage" as you do now. Because it could be interpretted as being a kind of "I can't argue against it if government is involved, but if I argue that government shouldn't be involved in any marriage then I prevent gay people having those rights without appearing bigoted" argument.

Even if you genuinely thought that the government should get out of marriage before you were aware of the gay marriage debate, then what you're essentially arguing is the removal of rights from the population that have been in place for a very long time. Ignoring the gay angle, do you have an argument why those rights should be removed from straight married couples? Or how the big holes in the system would be able to be plugged back up to restore the rights you think should stand?

For reference, here is the list of rights for married couples in the US as on wikipedia:

- Right to benefits while married:
- - employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
- - per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
- - Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
- - sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
- Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
- - veteran's disability
- - Supplemental Security Income
- - disability payments for federal employees
- - Medicaid
- - property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
- - income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
- - wages of an employee working for one's spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
- Joint and family-related rights:
- - joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
- - joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
- - family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
- - next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
- - custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
- - domestic violence intervention
- - access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
- Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
- Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
- Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
- Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
- Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
- Court notice of probate proceedings
- Domestic violence protection orders
- Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
- Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
- Funeral and bereavement leave
- Joint adoption and foster care
- Joint tax filing
- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
- Legal status with stepchildren
- Making spousal medical decisions
- Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
- Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
- Right of survivorship of custodial trust
- Right to change surname upon marriage
- Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
- Right to inheritance of property
- Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
- For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
- - Social Security pension
- - veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
- - survivor benefits for federal employees
- - survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
- - additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
- - $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
- - continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
- - renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
- - continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
- - payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
- - making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:46 pm

thegreekdog wrote:... is theocratical in nature. Is theocractical a word? If it's not, then patent pending.

As resident keeper of the OED, I am sorry to say you've been beaten to the punch:

theocratical, adj. Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of theocracy.

Image

But you have roused up a word that has barely been used one and one half or so centuries, so that must count for something, right?


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:09 pm

crispybits wrote:Stuff we've already discussed before.


My preferences are as follows:

- No recognition of marriage or any of the benefits associated with marriage.
- Since the first is unrealistic, recognition of same sex and polygamist marriage.

I'm not wedded to the first idea, so I'm fine with the second one.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:10 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:... is theocratical in nature. Is theocractical a word? If it's not, then patent pending.

As resident keeper of the OED, I am sorry to say you've been beaten to the punch:

theocratical, adj. Of, pertaining to, or of the nature of theocracy.

Image

But you have roused up a word that has barely been used one and one half or so centuries, so that must count for something, right?


--Andy


I need a patent attorney. I wonder if I can patent something that has already been invented.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:16 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:Stuff we've already discussed before.


My preferences are as follows:

- No recognition of marriage or any of the benefits associated with marriage.
- Since the first is unrealistic, recognition of same sex and polygamist marriage.

I'm not wedded to the first idea, so I'm fine with the second one.


Since the first is unrealistic, why even mention it?

If I'm asked what I want to do tonight, my answer is never to have Kate Beckinsale ride me like a bucking bronco for hour after hour, even though that's pretty much always preferable to any of the realistic options....
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Metsfanmax on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:16 pm

premio53 wrote:So you finally admit that there should be no moral absolutes upon which we base our laws. It's the law of the jungle and that is what we see happening.


Do you think that people are so inherently evil that if they don't have God to fear, they'll just all kill each other? Are you that inherently evil?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:19 pm

crispybits wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:Stuff we've already discussed before.


My preferences are as follows:

- No recognition of marriage or any of the benefits associated with marriage.
- Since the first is unrealistic, recognition of same sex and polygamist marriage.

I'm not wedded to the first idea, so I'm fine with the second one.


Since the first is unrealistic, why even mention it?

If I'm asked what I want to do tonight, my answer is never to have Kate Beckinsale ride me like a bucking bronco for hour after hour, even though that's pretty much always preferable to any of the realistic options....


Kate Beckinsale? Really?

Why? Because we're in a fucking online forum where we can have idyllic visions of our world. You can tell people you want to f*ck Kate Beckinsale (really, though?) as much as you want; no one is going to give you crap for it.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:20 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
premio53 wrote:So you finally admit that there should be no moral absolutes upon which we base our laws. It's the law of the jungle and that is what we see happening.


Do you think that people are so inherently evil that if they don't have God to fear, they'll just all kill each other? Are you that inherently evil?


Image
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:20 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:Stuff we've already discussed before.


My preferences are as follows:

- No recognition of marriage or any of the benefits associated with marriage.
- Since the first is unrealistic, recognition of same sex and polygamist marriage.

I'm not wedded to the first idea, so I'm fine with the second one.


Since the first is unrealistic, why even mention it?

If I'm asked what I want to do tonight, my answer is never to have Kate Beckinsale ride me like a bucking bronco for hour after hour, even though that's pretty much always preferable to any of the realistic options....


Kate Beckinsale? Really?

Why? Because we're in a fucking online forum where we can have idyllic visions of our world. You can tell people you want to f*ck Kate Beckinsale (really, though?) as much as you want; no one is going to give you crap for it.


Hello TGD.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:23 pm

Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:Stuff we've already discussed before.


My preferences are as follows:

- No recognition of marriage or any of the benefits associated with marriage.
- Since the first is unrealistic, recognition of same sex and polygamist marriage.

I'm not wedded to the first idea, so I'm fine with the second one.


Since the first is unrealistic, why even mention it?

If I'm asked what I want to do tonight, my answer is never to have Kate Beckinsale ride me like a bucking bronco for hour after hour, even though that's pretty much always preferable to any of the realistic options....


Kate Beckinsale? Really?

Why? Because we're in a fucking online forum where we can have idyllic visions of our world. You can tell people you want to f*ck Kate Beckinsale (really, though?) as much as you want; no one is going to give you crap for it.


Hello TGD.


Sorry. I've had this debate too many times in this forum.

crispy - all the things you listed are benefits granted by the government recognition of marriage. In other words, but for government making the determination that you need to be married to, for example, file for bankruptcy jointly, you would be able to do these things regardless of whether you were married or not.

EDIT - Also, I like Kate Beckinsale. She is a very attractive woman. But she wouldn't be my number one choice.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:31 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Symmetry wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
crispybits wrote:Stuff we've already discussed before.


My preferences are as follows:

- No recognition of marriage or any of the benefits associated with marriage.
- Since the first is unrealistic, recognition of same sex and polygamist marriage.

I'm not wedded to the first idea, so I'm fine with the second one.


Since the first is unrealistic, why even mention it?

If I'm asked what I want to do tonight, my answer is never to have Kate Beckinsale ride me like a bucking bronco for hour after hour, even though that's pretty much always preferable to any of the realistic options....


Kate Beckinsale? Really?

Why? Because we're in a fucking online forum where we can have idyllic visions of our world. You can tell people you want to f*ck Kate Beckinsale (really, though?) as much as you want; no one is going to give you crap for it.


Hello TGD.


Sorry. I've had this debate too many times in this forum.

crispy - all the things you listed are benefits granted by the government recognition of marriage. In other words, but for government making the determination that you need to be married to, for example, file for bankruptcy jointly, you would be able to do these things regardless of whether you were married or not.

EDIT - Also, I like Kate Beckinsale. She is a very attractive woman. But she wouldn't be my number one choice.


My number one choice wouldn't be the government tasking away the rights from all married people.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:35 pm

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

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.

It's called "having a debate", if you take position X then position X can be criticised, and if you cannot defend position X then position X can be declared irrelevant/impratical. To then continue to hold position X is irrational, you need to either adapt to a position X2 which gets around the criticisms, or move to position Y and never mention position X again. What you are doing is continuing to advocate a flawed position knowing that it's flawed. I'm just struggling to understand why someone who is normally very sensible in most of the posts of yours I read would do that.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:42 pm

At Sym and Crispy:

The government shouldn't be regulating how people interact with others when the interaction doesn't harm others. The list you've provided. The government should not give benefits to married people simply because they are married. The government shouldn't give visitation rights to one person simply because they are married to the other person. The government should not be regulating interpersonal relationships at all.

The list Crispy quoted is not a list of things that you can do when you're married; it's a list of things the government let's you do if you're married. The list necessarily discriminates against those who are not married. For example, my firm pays for health insurance for employees and their spouses, dependents, and co-habitants. This not discriminatory. If a straight woman co-habitates with her straight boyfriend, the boyfriend can get health insurance. If a straight woman co-habitates with her straight female friend, the female friend can get health insurance. Why should anyone be required to be married to get those benefits (whether straight or gay) if those are the benefits provided by the government?

And I should clarify - the position is not unrealistic. My position is impossible because when the government has its soiled talons (BLAM!) on something, it won't give it away. There is no scenario I can envision where the government would say "okay, you don't have to be related to get health insurance benefits."

EDIT - Let's have this debate somewhere else. I'm trying to get premio to admit he's a theocrat and I would prefer your support in that effort.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:55 pm

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?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:03 pm

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.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:18 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm

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
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby thegreekdog on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:39 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:54 pm

(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.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Frigidus on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:55 pm

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.
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby Symmetry on Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:55 pm

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.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:36 pm

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
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:40 pm

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:40 pm

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.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:43 pm

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
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users