Democratic Agenda

[Perd Hapley]

Not to mention that the homo marriage issue is about legal recognition, not about "letting" people marry. 

Not to mention that neither Christianity nor miscegenation bears much relevance to the topic at hand.


Anyway, Manedwolf, he's going to move on to the red herring of childless hetero couples, so you can probably write your response to that in advance.  Have a fun time banging your head on a stone wall arguing. 

[Manedwolf]

That's why I said "A chance", not "A certainly".

In a purely pragmatic sense, it's still in any nation's best interest to legally recognize hetero couples in marriage, because they have the greatest statistical chance of producing offspring that are:

1. Raised in a traditional household that will produce an educated, productive citizen
2. Raised with the values and traditions of the nation, thus ensuring its future

Sure, not all hetero couples will have kids. Doesn't matter. But NO homosexual couples can by and of themselves produce kids. Makes sense, doesn't it?

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, I fully understand why the childless-hetero thing is a red herring.  I get tired of explaining it to the other side. 

In a purely pragmatic sense, it's still in any nation's best interest to legally recognize hetero couples in marriage, because they have the greatest statistical chance of producing offspring that are:

1. Raised in a traditional household that will produce an educated, productive citizen
2. Raised with the values and traditions of the nation, thus ensuring its future

 
Oh, I guess.  I don't know.  I go back and forth on whether gov should recognize marriage at all.

[grampster]

A friend of mine once mentioned to me that it is not productive to get into a pissing contest with a skunk.  Good advice.

[Perd Hapley]

Who's the skunk, now? 

[grampster]

 Never mind.
(Long dissertation deleted.  Pointless under the circumstances.)


 

[wooderson]

How are they the same?

They're relationships between two persons who wish to define themselves as married.

A contract between two individuals to be considered as an individual in some circumstances and to have certain privileges and benefits bestowed upon them by the state.

Now, how are they different?

[wooderson]

Um. The first two have a definite possibility of producing further population, which is most certainly beneficial to any nation-state that wishes to continue existing.

You may have noticed that humans are more than capable of "producing further population" without ever being married.

In fact, humans are more than capable of "producing further population" without even having sex. Welcome to the 21st century, brother.

And if your argument is that the progeny of married couples are socially preferable (ie less prone to committing crime, etc.) to progeny of unmarried persons, then this should hold true for hetero or homo situations.

Unless, of course, you can provide evidence that children of gay parents are more prone to committing crimes, winding up with a lower quality of life, etc.. (Which you can't, and which would be absurd even if you believe the 'lifestyle' is 'passed on,' as homosexuals on the whole are less prone to commit crimes and make more money than the rest of us.)

[Strings]

Wow... talk about a thread hijack!

Remove government from the "marriage" business all together. Develop some form of simple "civil union contract", which takes care of all the forms and such that Gramps listed easily, to deal with anyone wishing to enter into such an arrangement. Leave "marriage" to whichever "church"* the involved parties belong to.


*"church". Not trying to be irritating, but using this as a catch-all term for the "governing body" for whatever faith you belong to, regardless of faith

[wooderson]

A reasonable solution.

But the end result is the same, however - you've just replaced 'marriage' (and established law) with two words.

Any (straight) couple who wants to get married can do so today without ever stepping foot in a church or talking to a minister/priest/imam/rabbi/etc., legally that part is irrelevant. It's the license issued by the state that counts.

Is it easier to simply say "okay, 'marriage' is between any two consenting adults" or to change the term entirely?
Is either option going to satisfy those who object to same-sex unions on moral grounds? "Devaluing marriage!" either way.

[Strings]

The main argument that I encounter is the use of the term "marriage" being applied to a same-sex couple. So... change the terminology across the board.

 My support of some form of civil union for gays is based on one case: a couple that had been together for years. We'll call them Bruce and Joe.

 They had a home together, lots of belongings, and a great relationship: the ideal that most couples strive for. Then Bruce fell ill with a terminal disease. Joe spent as much time as he could at the hospital with Bruce (like any spouse would). Finally, Bruce succumbed to his illness...

 While Joe was at the hospital, grieving for the loss of his partner, Bruce's family made their move. You see, they had never approved of the relationship, and now saw their chance. They broke into the house, changed all the locks, and basically left Joe with nothing but the clothes on his back.

 Because Joe and Bruce weren't "married", Joe really had no legal leg to stand on: what Bruce's family had done was perfectly legal, they being the legal "next of kin" and all.

 Stop and think about that: the ONLY thing these guys had "done to society" was being in a non-standard relationship. And this guy was completely destroyed, emotionally and financially.


 So... a mixed-sex couple can: go to the courthouse, fill out a simple form, present some ID, and pay $80 (what it cost for Spoon and I). Now they're protected from this kinda stuff. A same-sex couple must: go to the courthouse, get multiple forms, probably hire a lawyer, and spend a fair amount of cash for the same protection.

 And some of you want to tell me that this is, somehow, "equal under the law"?

 Wow. Just... wow.

[Perd Hapley]

And some of you want to tell me that this is, somehow, "equal under the law"?

And you want to tell me that Bruce and Joe is equal to Jim and Cathy? 

[wooderson]

You've yet to provide a substantive difference, so... yeah.

[Strings]

THE only advantage that "Jim and Cathy" have over "Joe and Bruce" is the possibility that J&C MIGHT have children, whereas J&B would either have to adopt or find a surrogate.

 That possibility is enough to grant J&C an easier time protecting themselves? Especially given that, whatever contracts, wills, and what-not J&B have drawn up, their decisions can be much more easily contested in court?

 Fistful, I am NOT suggesting that kids should be taught about homosexuality in elementary school (that whole "two mommies" thing just bothers me). Nor am I suggesting that overwhelming accomodations be made for gays. I'm simply suggesting that they be given the same protections other Americans enjoy. Is that REALLY so much to ask?

[MicroBalrog]

Fistful, I am NOT suggesting that kids should be taught about homosexuality in elementary school

If someone wants to ensure he has control of the content of their child's education, they should either send him/her into a private school or homeschool them. Public school means that the social engineers have greater control over your child than you do  - not something you'd want unless you simply can't afford anything else.

[Perd Hapley]

You've yet to provide a substantive difference, so... yeah.

The fact that Bruce and Joe have matching junk is not substantive? 

I'm simply suggesting that they be given the same protections other Americans enjoy. Is that REALLY so much to ask?

But you're not.  You're asking for two men to be the equal of an opposite-sex couple.  When the facts speak otherwise.  Like wooderson, you're asking us to pretend that sex differences don't matter.  If Bruce and Joe wanted to be equal to actual married couples, they would seek a partner of the opposite sex.  But they clearly do not want that.  And they have a right to shack up and do their thing.  At their own risk, just like non-sexual roommates.  HM is an arrangement based (legally) on mere sex, not on the very real possibility of procreation, with children being raised by their biological parents, as with real marriage.

Yeah, yeah, homosexuals could have children in the house, too.     So could two men (or thirteen women) who ain't having sex with each other.  So could a brother and sister who live together.  If we're going to have civil unions just for the sake of the kids, then let's do so.  There's no reason for it to be based on homosexuality. 

That goes for every other facet of a homosexual relationship.  If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals.  There is no reason why mere sexual relations should grant one govt. protection. 

[Strings]

>If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals<

Which is exactly what I was suggesting: government out of the "marriage" business, and civil unions for whatever form of co-habitation agreement is needed between consenting adults

[wooderson]

The fact that Bruce and Joe have matching junk is not substantive? 

Not in the least.

But you're not.  You're asking for two men to be the equal of an opposite-sex couple.  When the facts speak otherwise.

What facts are these?
Why shouldn't same-sex couples be treated as "equal" to opposite-sex couples?

[wooderson]

If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals.

These already exist. They're called 'marriages' - they have nothing to do with God, religion, sex or procreation.

You go down to the courthouse, you fill out some paperwork, maybe get a blood test - and voila! in the eyes of the state, you done got married. Doesn't matter if you ever bump uglies, have kids, visit a church, tell your parents, or anything else.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals.

These already exist. They're called 'marriages' - they have nothing to do with God, religion, sex or procreation.

That, right there, is the fundamental flaw of your position.

If it is available to any two people, and any 14 people, and if it has nothing to do with God, religion, sex, or families, then it most definitely is not a marriage. 

Civil union?  Sure, fine with me.  But a dog isn't a duck, an apple isn't an orange, and that isn't a marriage.

[wooderson]

If it is available to any two people, and any 14 people, and if it has nothing to do with God, religion, sex, or families, then it most definitely is not a marriage.

Why not?

Go look at a marriage license application. Not once does it ask you if you believe in God, plan to have sex, or wish to procreate. Nowhere.

Thus, in the United States today, marriage has nothing to do with God, religion, sex or families. Like I said.

Civil union?  Sure, fine with me.  But a dog isn't a duck, an apple isn't an orange, and that isn't a marriage.

A dog, a duck, an apple and an orange are objects with physical properties.

What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?

[Strings]

>A dog, a duck, an apple and an orange are objects with physical properties.

What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?<

dude... can you go argue for the other side for awhile? Please?

[wooderson]

If he thinks 'marriage' is akin to 'dog,' I'd like to hear his justification.

[Perd Hapley]

>A dog, a duck, an apple and an orange are objects with physical properties.

What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?<

dude... can you go argue for the other side for awhile? Please?

I've been over this ground with him before.  He seems to think anything non-physical is totally up-for-grabs. 

I guess I could ask him why he's so sure about his idea of equality or rights.  What are the physical properties of equality under the law?  What's its shape?  Why don't we just redefine it, until it means the majority has all the rights, and the homosexuals have nothing? 

[wooderson]

Anything not-physical is not "up for grabs" - it is simply a concept defined, and redefined, by man. Dogs and ducks are not changeable through language - you can make up whatever words you want, but one will still have a bill and webbed feet no matter who is viewing it. Language does not modify physical properties.

'Marriage' (or 'the right to bear arms') has no such immutability. It's a question of mores and laws, and can be changed to suit the prevailing wishes of the populace at any time.

Like marriage, 'equality' and 'rights' are what a given society decides they are. There certainly isn't an unchanging, objective definition for either, natural law is a fiction, etc.

Why don't we just redefine it, until it means the majority has all the rights, and the homosexuals have nothing?

You could certainly attempt to do this, yes.