|
On July 13 2012 07:33 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:15 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 07:06 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 07:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:
[quote]
I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one.
Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk  . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for. My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place. What? I'm confused. Are you suggesting we get rid of civil marriage altogether and have civil unions for everybody? Or are you suggesting that straight people get married and gay people get unioned? There really isn't a benefit to maintaining the traditional marriage definition. Maybe for religious purposes, but the government doesn't get involved in that. Gays and Lesbians are just as much married as straight people are. They just happen to have the same genitalia. Let's just drop the sexism from marriage. I know it's a hard concept, considering its origins, but we do live in a modern society. Im not interested in maintaining it for religious purposes. I would maintain the distinction between hetero couples and same sex couples because I believe the governement should prefer that the ideal familial unit be a heterosexual couple because it brings the most benefit to society. The reason why heterosexual couples have that benefit in contrast to same sex couples is because men and women are inherently different in material ways beyond mere sexual genitalia, and those differences create the best enviroment for raising children, let alone the fact that those relationships create children in the first place. This is not to say that the government should discourage same sex relationships, or that they are bad or any nonsense like that. But I do think that heterosexual unions should be the ideal. Obviously not eveyone can have those unions, and it's not their fault either, but I'm not willing to eliminate having an ideal family relationship on purely arguments of fairness. Anyways, thats my take. If you don't think men and women are any differnet except for sexual organs then this goes out the window, and you should support gay marriage. Saying men and women are different besides sexual organs is not what I'm talking about. I never said men and women are the same. However, codifying law that differentiates between the two for arbitrary reasons like this one is illegal and goes against the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think you understand that. There is massive difference between sexism and institutionalized sexism. Again, I see no reason why a homosexual couple would be inherently worse for raising children than a heterosexual couple. There is no evidence or logical basis for that assertion (besides for the is-ought fallacy).
The 14th amendment has never been interpreted that way by the Supreme Court, which is the only court that matters when it comes to Con law. As a law student I understand what you're saying very well.
We'll get to see what the Roberts court thinks about it though pretty soon though. The 9th circuit recently struck down prop 8 in california on that basis, and the Supreme Court will almost certainly grant review.
Gender distinctions are not reviewed with strict scrutiny like racial distinctions, but you never know what the court will decide.
|
Well thats fine, but lets say i accept your premise that heterosexual couples are the best possible for raising children.
Goverments could, on the exact same basis, logically prefer heterosexual couples of certain types.
Whether it be ones who have features, financial stability, lack of addictions, reliable jobs, live in safe areas etc. etc.
To heterosexual couples that do not fulfill these same criteria.
How is saying homosexual marriage should not be allowed based on this any different than saying governments should prefer certain types of hereosexual relationship and limit the ability to marry to certain types of heterosexual relationship any different?
And the above is vague. Take my earlier example of a heterosexual couple who fervently do not wish, and will not have children. Would you say the government can logically limit their right to marry, to the extent that they deny it.
This is what you are arguing for in the case of homosexual couples not being allowed to marry, and on the grounds you have provided I cannot see how you can justify it without also allowing for the limitation of the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, at least in some circumstances.
Please illucidate me 
|
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
|
On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote:
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law.
I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life.
Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading.
I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
|
On July 13 2012 07:45 XeliN wrote:Well thats fine, but lets say i accept your premise that heterosexual couples are the best possible for raising children. Goverments could, on the exact same basis, logically prefer heterosexual couples of certain types. Whether it be ones who have features, financial stability, lack of addictions, reliable jobs, live in safe areas etc. etc. To heterosexual couples that do not fulfill these same criteria. How is saying homosexual marriage should not be allowed based on this any different than saying governments should prefer certain types of hereosexual relationship and limit the ability to marry to certain types of heterosexual relationship any different? And the above is vague. Take my earlier example of a heterosexual couple who fervently do not wish, and will not have children. Would you say the government can logically limit their right to marry, to the extent that they deny it. This is what you are arguing for in the case of homosexual couples not being allowed to marry, and on the grounds you have provided I cannot see how you can justify it without also allowing for the limitation of the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, at least in some circumstances. Please illucidate me
Thats true, they could but those criteria are not related to the selection of what kind of couple should be preferred. Financial stability, lack of addictions, etc. are not inherent characteristics of a heterosexual couple or any kind of couple for that matter, so those criteria really arn't any use in determining what kind of relationship we should prefer as a society. If you want to figure out what type of relationship to prefer, we should only focus on those inherent characteristics that they possess in distinction to the inherent characteristics of a same sex couple or any kind of couple.
|
On July 13 2012 07:56 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote:
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law. I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life. Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading. I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes.
If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face, and millions of other faces. You're nothing but a goddamn coward.
|
On July 13 2012 08:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:56 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote:
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law. I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life. Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading. I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes. If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face. You're nothing but a goddamn coward.
Ha, alrighty then. I disagree. But you shouldn't get so mad :/
|
Really. If you don't think it's degrading, then why wouldn't you say it to their face?
|
Ok i see the point your trying to make here.
I guess I would have to respond. Why do you think, your own, individual conception.......
On firstly what marriage is, and what it should be about.
Secondly on the nature of child development and nurture and the role that gender plays in this.
Thirdly on the basis for which governments can and should favour certain relationships.
Fourthly on the extent to which they can act on this favouring, and the kinds of limitations or restrictions they can implement.
.......Be established and written into an unbinding law of society that everyone be forced to follow? There is a difference between having a view on something and demanding that the law of the land align with that view, especially when your view attempts to justify treating others differently and restricting their rights or abilities on arbitrary notions.
|
On July 13 2012 08:13 DoubleReed wrote:
Really. If you don't think it's degrading, then why wouldn't you say it to their face?
If she asked me about it, I would tell her that I thought it was different from heterosexual marriage. But I'm not in the habit of injecting a contentious political discussions right after my friend came to me and told me they're getting married. lol
|
On July 13 2012 08:08 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 08:05 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 07:56 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote:
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law. I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life. Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading. I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes. If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face. You're nothing but a goddamn coward. Ha, alrighty then. I disagree. But you shouldn't get so mad :/
I'm not mad, but I also think you're a coward.
|
User was warned for this post
|
On July 13 2012 08:13 XeliN wrote:
Ok i see the point your trying to make here.
I guess I would have to respond. Why do you think, your own, individual conception.......
On firstly what marriage is, and what it should be about.
Secondly on the nature of child development and nurture and the role that gender plays in this.
Thirdly on the basis for which governments can and should favour certain relationships.
Fourthly on the extent to which they can act on this favouring, and the kinds of limitations or restrictions they can implement.
.......Be established and written into an unbinding law of society that everyone be forced to follow? There is a difference between having a view on something and demanding that the law of the land align with that view, especially when your view attempts to justify treating others differently and restricting their rights or abilities on arbitrary notions.
As to your last point. I think it's up to society to decide what marriage is and what it means through the democratic process. I'm arguing what I think the standard should be and that's what I would vote for, but it is truly up to society to decide as a whole what the definition should be. So I could easily and may soon be overridden by the populace.
To the first question, from a secular standpoint marriage is what society decides is the ideal family unit for society. It's why we still, even by most gay marriage supporters, don't like polygamy, or other types of unusual relationships.
As to child development. I'm not too sure about. I know it's a combination of nature and nurture, but I'd probably say it leans slightly more towards nature rather than nurture. Stories about identical twins separated at birth, who end up with same job, same amound of kids, and wives with the same name are weird examples of this.
As to the third point, the basis for doing so would be that one relationship provides more benefits to society then others. Benefits could be anything from child rearing, procreation, fairness, really anything that people like to see. Again it would just be up to the society in general to decide what benefits to obtain and what relationship gives those benefits. I suppose in a society where they did not want to increase population they would prefer same sex unions to heterosexual on that basis.
As to the fourth thing. The extent to which I would like to see one preferred is pretty much just identify one as the ideal.
|
On July 13 2012 08:18 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 08:08 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 08:05 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 07:56 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 07:45 DoubleReed wrote:
I'd like to illustrate the issue with what you are proposing. Say your lesbian friend told you she was getting married. You proceed to explain to her why her fiancé is not technically a fiancé and she's technically not getting married. Now, hopefully you would agree that saying this to your friend is a horrible breach of taste. If you don't then I can only say that you're a total asshole.
Now realize that what we're talking about is way way worse than that. This is putting into law your insulting, degrading opinions. This is not the purpose of the law. I would tell my lesbian friend congrats and I would happily attend her wedding with no issue. I have no problem separating my opinions on how society should work in general from what happens in my personal life. Look I agree with you that it's unfair to gays that they cant get married. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. But I dont agree with you that the distinction between marriage and a civil union is degrading if you believe as I do, that men and women are inherently different. Calling two different things two different names is not degrading. I understand what you're saying though. For example it would be very degrading to call marriage different things based on the race of those getting married. But I think that's degrading becase there are no inherent differences between the races. Unlike between the sexes. If you aren't willing to tell someone that their marriage isn't a marriage to their face then why are you willing to do something that is way more offensive, putting institution into place that says it to their face. You're nothing but a goddamn coward. Ha, alrighty then. I disagree. But you shouldn't get so mad :/ I'm not mad, but I also think you're a coward.
Sometimes I don't gg after I lose. You may be right.
|
On July 13 2012 08:03 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:45 XeliN wrote:Well thats fine, but lets say i accept your premise that heterosexual couples are the best possible for raising children. Goverments could, on the exact same basis, logically prefer heterosexual couples of certain types. Whether it be ones who have features, financial stability, lack of addictions, reliable jobs, live in safe areas etc. etc. To heterosexual couples that do not fulfill these same criteria. How is saying homosexual marriage should not be allowed based on this any different than saying governments should prefer certain types of hereosexual relationship and limit the ability to marry to certain types of heterosexual relationship any different? And the above is vague. Take my earlier example of a heterosexual couple who fervently do not wish, and will not have children. Would you say the government can logically limit their right to marry, to the extent that they deny it. This is what you are arguing for in the case of homosexual couples not being allowed to marry, and on the grounds you have provided I cannot see how you can justify it without also allowing for the limitation of the rights of heterosexual couples to marry, at least in some circumstances. Please illucidate me Thats true, they could but those criteria are not related to the selection of what kind of couple should be preferred. Financial stability, lack of addictions, etc. are not inherent characteristics of a heterosexual couple or any kind of couple for that matter, so those criteria really arn't any use in determining what kind of relationship we should prefer as a society. If you want to figure out what type of relationship to prefer, we should only focus on those inherent characteristics that they possess in distinction to the inherent characteristics of a same sex couple or any kind of couple.
Pragmatically, trying to decide on that is a bit pointless, because there are orphans that never get adopted, so rules making it harder to adopt for homosexual couples could be worse for the actual orphans.
Another thing that I am suspicious and very unsure about is what you said about evolutionary factors in another post. I could very well imagine, by pure nature, a completely different setup was the norm. Perhaps the best for a healthy human mind and children would be to live in groups with a dozen adults without walls between them, couples being an informal construct.
I feel arguing that something is natural and something is not, does not make sense other than getting an overview about what is possible and what is not. People are too different for rules working for everyone's happiness, and need to decide and find out by themselves how to best live their lives.
Besides nature, other real cultures had different setups than ours. There is for example polygamy with many men never marrying. In China, there is a region with a culture where families and property are organized around the women. Each woman gets her own private room in the family's house when she is old enough, there are no marriages, a woman takes anyone she fancies into her room at night.
In my opinion, the officials deciding on an adoption should look at the character of the individuals, and about anything more than character, base the decision on a comparison to what the orphan's environment would be like without the adoption.
|
Wikipedia says that marriage is not distinct as being between a man and a woman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
"a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship"
Merriam-Webster has marriage down as being between any combination of sexes:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
As does dictionary.com.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage
Now, the people who run these dictionaries are much better educated in grammar and vocabulary than any politician, so I can't really see how anyone could define marriage between a man and a woman without thumping a Bible in righteous indignation.
|
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies.
|
On July 13 2012 09:05 kevinmon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies.
There's a difference between making babies and raising babies.
And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation.
|
On July 13 2012 09:13 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:05 kevinmon wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies. There's a difference between making babies and raising babies. And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation.
You answered your own question. There are differences between the sexes. There are not differences between the races. Gay marriage supporters do not support a definition which involves a determination of your sexual orientation. So any two straight people will be able to marry. I have no idea how you could prove/disprove that someone is gay, you'd have to take their word for it. So obviously any definition of marriage that involved orientation would be unworkable and stupid because there is no way to tell who someone is truely attracted to.
|
On July 13 2012 09:24 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 09:13 ghrur wrote:On July 13 2012 09:05 kevinmon wrote:On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote:
Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
This guy has a good point, you can't make babies. There's a difference between making babies and raising babies. And I don't understand how someone like BobbyT, who claims to be a "law student" (WOOT! ANOTHER UNVERIFIED EXPERT I MUST LISTEN TO!), can support civil unions but not gay marriages when that's essentially "separate but equal" when Brown vs Board of Education has stated that "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. Although, I suppose if you want to say you're allowing the inequality on the basis of sex, there's some merit, but let's be realistic. The difference is not on the basis of sex but sexual orientation. You answered your own question. There are differences between the sexes. There are not differences between the races. Gay marriage supporters do not support a definition which involves a determination of your sexual orientation. So any two straight people will be able to marry. I have no idea how you could prove/disprove that someone is gay, you'd have to take their word for it. So obviously any definition of marriage that involved orientation would be unworkable and stupid because there is no way to tell who someone is truely attracted to.
So then don't involve orientation in the definition of marriage?
The fact that you think it's "unworkable" is hilarious considering that dozens of nations around the world seem to have done it without any issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
