| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Voyage
Germany71 Posts
Why do gay couples getting equal economic opportunities lead to stripping kidless couples of their benefits? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. I don't see why marriage can't just be between two consenting adults regardless of gender, or how that would change anything. I meant you should rather subsidize raising children, than just the mere legal act of marriage. Regardless of the parents sexual orientation/sex. | ||
|
PassiveAce
United States18076 Posts
I disagree with you Voyage, I dont think that marriage exists solely for the benefit of children. If it did then your logic would make sense but that just isnt its purpose anymore imo. maybe in the past it was but it isn't now. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:37 codonbyte wrote: I disagree. In the USA, being married brings with it over 1000 protections and benefits from the federal government (source). Civil unions bring none of those protections or benefits. Giving that many protections and benefits to straight couples, while not doing so for gay couples, IS a form of oppression. Granted, it's not anywhere close to as bad as, say, slavery, but it's still oppression. As I've said before, "separate but equal" doesn't work. If we have one word for a legal union between a straight couple and another word for a legal union between a gay couple, then it is possible for a lawmaker to make laws that apply to one but not the other. And since straight people are the majority, guess who's going to get the short end of the stick? Give civil unions the same benefits and duties as a marriage. Let whoever the fuck wants to engage in a civil union, including multiple partners, genders and whatever you can find. Let the religions marry whoever they want to. Done. It's really not that hard. | ||
|
Shodaa
Canada404 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:29 PCloadletter wrote: I never said that. What I said is that "equal rights" is not an actual argument by itself, despite the apparent hundreds of people who are convinced it is. . Ah, my mistake about that part, english is not my main language and I was watching WCS at the same time, sorry. I am more of the opinion that equal right is a good argument though. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:38 Blazinghand wrote: I don't think the fact that TL is a gaming forum gives us an excuse not to have a high-level discourse. In fact, some of the discussions on serious issues I've had here on TL have been substantially better than on other forums ostensibly dedicated to that kind of discussion. Just because TL is a forum initially for Brood War doesn't mean we don't have really good conversations about other things. Well if we're going to have "high level discourse" then it's reasonable to assume idiots aren't going to trot out asinine semantics arguments and pat themselves on the back for "contributing." When I say "I support equality" in a thread clearly about gay rights, I shouldn't have to address every mouth breather who responds with "so you support pedophiles right?" | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:38 Voyage wrote: I meant you should rather subsidize raising children, than just the mere legal act of marriage. Regardless of the parents sexual orientation/sex. Ah, I see. I don't think we should subsidize raising children, but regardless of that, given that we currently allow straight people to marry it seems reasonable to allow gay people to marry too. Especially since like it's pretty shitty in our society not having things like hospital visitation rights, etc that married people get | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:33 Voyage wrote: You know, many people (at least in my country) are married legally (state contract), but did not undergo that whole church thing. I do not know anybody who married in church but not legally, and why is that (there might or might not be this as obligation for church marriage)? It is because monetary benefits for married couples exist. I feel like this is the right gay people fight for, and they are right, if they want equal economic opportunities. However this system is flawed: The benefits exist because it is in the states interest to promote family environments, as they show (historically) that they are where children are born. (I am not going to argue wether children grow up better in intact families or single-parent households) So actually the state is promoting raising children. If a gay couple wants to adopt a child (or n children) give them their "rights". Strip kidless couples off their benefits. Equality, you got it. Don't think you gonna win an election with this though. As for religious ceremonies (in a secular state - is USA a secular state?) every religion may in/exclude whoever at will. For the thousandth time, no, joint filing and the child tax credit are not the same thing. http://www.urban.org/books/TTP/whittington.cfm Second part explains the origins of joint filing. The difference you talk about already exists: tax incentives for children. I have no opinion on the joint filing issue. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:43 Blazinghand wrote: Ah, I see. I don't think we should subsidize raising children, but regardless of that, given that we currently allow straight people to marry it seems reasonable to allow gay people to marry too. Especially since like it's pretty shitty in our society not having things like hospital visitation rights, etc that married people get We already do thought tax breaks and public education. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:37 RockIronrod wrote: ... have you actually read the thread? It's like 1% people disagreeing with it, 90% people collectively beating those people, and 9% debating the semantics of the word equality. But it shouldn't reach this high! The owners of the website decided to make a rainbow horse to show their support for something they believe in. That should not translate to 85 pages of content; it should not. And if this were just a one case problem I'd be fine with it. But every female gamer thread, every scarlett thread, every women's rights thread, etc.... They all balloon with arguments valid or invalid. It's just aggravating. | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:39 Shodaa wrote: Ah, my mistake about that part, english is not my main language and I was watching WCS at the same time, sorry. I am more of the opinion that equal right is a good argument though. The problem is that it can be infinitely stretched and reworked to apply to all sorts of things, because without limit "equal rights" can apply to anyone, so it's a fundamentally weak argument since it assumes other people will automatically have the same idea of the limits you put on your definition of it (and you NEED to put limitations on it) and whether accidentally or on purpose won't stretch it to insulting boundaries. It's a lot clearer to just point at the multitudes of evidence that cannot be manipulated that supports gay marriage. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote: We already do thought tax breaks and public education. Believe it or not I do not think our society is perfect. I was just commenting in that initial sentence about Voyages thoughts, but REGARDLESS of that, it's pretty mean to be like shitting on one group of people | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:45 Thieving Magpie wrote: But it shouldn't reach this high! The owners of the website decided to make a rainbow horse to show their support for something they believe in. That should not translate to 85 pages of content; it should not. And if this were just a one case problem I'd be fine with it. But every female gamer thread, every scarlett thread, every women's rights thread, etc.... They all balloon with arguments valid or invalid. It's just aggravating. Welcome to democracy, where a thousand voices scream and no one gets heard, all arguments become circular as more and more people get into the discussion. | ||
|
Shodaa
Canada404 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:39 PassiveAce wrote: You are misunderstanding Voyage a bit Blazinghand. I disagree with you Voyage, I dont think that marriage exists solely for the benefit of children. If it did then your logic would make sense but that just isnt its purpose anymore imo. maybe in the past it was but it isn't now. Exactly. Marriage has never been exclusively for children, even in the past. In a social context, marriage create alliance between group/tribes/clans, etc, allows inheritance through lineage and a lot of stuff. Having children is just one part of that, though marriage is absolutely not necessary to make children. | ||
|
codonbyte
United States840 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:39 r.Evo wrote: Give civil unions the same benefits and duties as a marriage. Let whoever the fuck wants to engage in a civil union, including multiple partners, genders and whatever you can find. Let the religions marry whoever they want to. Done. It's really not that hard. It's easy to say "just give civil unions the same benefits and duties as marriage". However when you consider that there are over 1000 benefits and duties that married couples get that gay couples don't currently get, it becomes more difficult. How are you going to ensure that some law-maker in the future doesn't draft some legislation that has the word "marriage" in it without bothering to also include the word "civil union"? To quote now.org: Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties. You really believe that every lawmaker is ALWAYS going to remember to insert "civil union" wherever they use the word "marriage" in their legislation? You actually believe that everyone who drafts a legal document is going to remember to use "married/in civil union"? If there is a separate term for a union between a gay couple, then gay people are going to have to constantly be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they continue to get the same rights that straight people get. Edit: included link to the now.org page that I quoted: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:39 r.Evo wrote: Give civil unions the same benefits and duties as a marriage. Let whoever the fuck wants to engage in a civil union, including multiple partners, genders and whatever you can find. Let the religions marry whoever they want to. Done. It's really not that hard. No. Religious Union, and legal marriage. The term is important, because last I heard, nobody has copyrighted the word marriage. It should be available to all. Religious Unions can marry whoever they do or don't want to. Legal Marriage should be available to all people who can legally consent to the contract. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:49 codonbyte wrote: It's easy to say "just give civil unions the same benefits and duties as marriage". However when you consider that there are over 1000 benefits and duties that married couples get that gay couples don't currently get, it becomes more difficult. How are you going to ensure that some law-maker in the future doesn't draft some legislation that has the word "marriage" in it without bothering to also include the word "civil union"? To quote now.org: You really believe that every lawmaker is ALWAYS going to remember to insert "civil union" wherever they use the word "marriage" in their legislation? You actually believe that everyone who drafts a legal document is going to remember to use "married/in civil union"? If there is a separate term for a union between a gay couple, then gay people are going to have to constantly be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they get the same rights that straight people get. yeah this is like super true and is one of the reasons having a separate marriage word (also, like wat, why is making the word different so important to people unless they plan on discriminating?) for gay marriage is really a terrible idea in the US we tried "separate but equal" and boy did that go shittily | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:45 Thieving Magpie wrote: But it shouldn't reach this high! The owners of the website decided to make a rainbow horse to show their support for something they believe in. That should not translate to 85 pages of content; it should not. And if this were just a one case problem I'd be fine with it. But every female gamer thread, every scarlett thread, every women's rights thread, etc.... They all balloon with arguments valid or invalid. It's just aggravating. I don't see how content is bad, it evolved into a discussion of the various facets of gay rights, and discussion is never a bad thing. I might disagree with some of the things being said, and people might disagree with me, but except for few, few outliers no one disagrees with the horse or it's meaning, or the idea that gay marriage is a necessity in todays day and age. The fact that more of the debate is about semantics says a lot for the consensus. It's progress, and I think talking about it freely is good progress. | ||
|
Bayyne
United States1967 Posts
| ||
|
Tyrran
France777 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:51 Jormundr wrote: No. Religious Union, and legal marriage. The term is important, because last I heard, nobody has copyrighted the word marriage. It should be available to all. Religious Unions can marry whoever they do or don't want to. Legal Marriage should be available to all people who can legally consent to the contract. Or you know, religious marriage and civil marriage. As far as I know, religious marriage is just an addition to legal marriage. Havent heard of anyone getting married 'religiously' without a civil marriage beforehand. Its usually go to city hall -> go to church -> party ( at least here in France). Just call the civil union marriage, and let LGBT have it too. If religious people want to go to church too, let them do. If churches do not want marry gay people (that is slowly changing too btw), that is their problem. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2013 02:49 codonbyte wrote: It's easy to say "just give civil unions the same benefits and duties as marriage". However when you consider that there are over 1000 benefits and duties that married couples get that gay couples don't currently get, it becomes more difficult. How are you going to ensure that some law-maker in the future doesn't draft some legislation that has the word "marriage" in it without bothering to also include the word "civil union"? To quote now.org: You really believe that every lawmaker is ALWAYS going to remember to insert "civil union" wherever they use the word "marriage" in their legislation? You actually believe that everyone who drafts a legal document is going to remember to use "married/in civil union"? If there is a separate term for a union between a gay couple, then gay people are going to have to constantly be fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they continue to get the same rights that straight people get. Edit: included link to the now.org page that I quoted: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html We're now redefining institutions based on how hard it is to get checklists on forms to change? I wouldn't be opposed at all if every single damn one were changed to Single/Divorced/Widowed/Partnered. It's the state, and I've seen time and time again the bureaucracy hurry to catch up with the changing powers, regulations, and procedures. Claiming some dunce lawmakers are cause enough to change terms is ludicrous. Since changing regulations involving who's a kid (26 sometimes) and who's an adult, let's just legally make all born men and women adults at day 0. After all, legislators might get it wrong, and it would be terrible to have people considered a kid for one right, and an adult for another ... | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
