And comparing homosexuality to bestiality is laughable. Or infuriating, depending on the audience.
You guys are the ones who want equal rights for everyone. Why can't farmer Brown fuck a goat. :P
Well, I mean, Farmer Brown IS a much older man. Sometimes things just don't work the way they used to...
EDIT: Actually, the HUGE problem with bestiality, other than the gigantic ick factor, goes back to an issue of consent. You can't get the goat to consent to sex, so if you have sex with it, you're committing rape.
It gets trickier if it's a male animal doing the fucking, but I'd say it's all sort of lumped together in one giant pile of "NO."
EDIT THE SECOND:
My point is that it seems contradictory, or at least ironic, that those who argued their case largely on a premise of 'it doesn't affect anyone else' should act like it does affect them so strongly when the measure passed.
That's neither contradictory nor ironic. Your choice of sexual partner in no way, shape, or form affects ANY person outside of that relationship. However, denying people access to certain legal rights based on their choice of sexual partner DOES affect their relationship, in a negative way.
Two consenting age gay men getting their groove on doesn't hurt you one goddamn bit. Those two getting married doesn't hurt you one bit. You denying them certain legal rights DOES hurt them. Less hurt. More buttsex.
And comparing homosexuality to bestiality is laughable. Or infuriating, depending on the audience.
You guys are the ones who want equal rights for everyone. Why can't farmer Brown fuck a goat. :P
"Equal rights for everyone" doesn't mean "let everyone go wild and do whatever the heck they want." It means that as human beings, we all have inherent rights and an inherent human dignity that should be respected, and that no one should be denied said rights on the basis of skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic.
Note that fucking goats, or whatever other wild thing you might suggest, is not a right. Especially if it interferes with someone else's rights. As for the goat, it can't consent, and you could likely hurt it. So no, people can't argue "I have a right to do whatever I want, even if it's fucking goats."
getavids, do you honestly believe in the "gay marriage" ---> "goat fucking" slippery slope, or are you just using it for the sake of argument? Because I seriously have to question your logic if it's the former.
I'll point out that people made the same argument against making homosexual sex legal; after all, the act itself was banned in many states for a long time. It's now been about half a decade since the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional; I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed any significant push for legalized goat-fucking in those five years.
We are getting off topic. The topic is whether or not redefining marriage to be a union of two people rather than a union between a man or a woman is right, needed, or justified and what the ramifications, if any, the redefining of the term would be.
The topic is whether or not redefining marriage to be a union of two people rather than a union between a man or a woman is right, needed, or justified and what the ramifications, if any, the redefining of the term would be.
I'm all in favor of government getting out of the marriage business completely, and doing only civil unions. "Marriage" would be exclusively a private, religious thing. Then, your church is free to hate gays all they want, because it's none of their business.
My point is that it seems contradictory, or at least ironic, that those who argued their case largely on a premise of 'it doesn't affect anyone else' should act like it does affect them so strongly when the measure passed.
That's neither contradictory nor ironic. Your choice of sexual partner in no way, shape, or form affects ANY person outside of that relationship. However, denying people access to certain legal rights based on their choice of sexual partner DOES affect their relationship, in a negative way.
That's exactly what I was getting at. Denying marriage to gays does hurt them. But it doesn't hurt anyone else, because it's none of our business what goes on (or does not go on) between two consenting adults, right?
getavids, do you honestly believe in the "gay marriage" ---> "goat fucking" slippery slope, or are you just using it for the sake of argument? Because I seriously have to question your logic if it's the former.
It is the latter. Again, this equality in everything is a slipperier slope than a lot of people probably think it is. I think gay marriage has become a twitch reflex for a lot of people in this country. No one is thinking about the "what happens after?"
getavids, do you honestly believe in the "gay marriage" ---> "goat fucking" slippery slope, or are you just using it for the sake of argument? Because I seriously have to question your logic if it's the former.
It is the latter. Again, this equality in everything is a slipperier slope than a lot of people probably think it is. I think gay marriage has become a twitch reflex for a lot of people in this country. No one is thinking about the "what happens after?"
So, what does happen after? What you actually believe, not something for the sake of argument.
getavids, do you honestly believe in the "gay marriage" ---> "goat fucking" slippery slope, or are you just using it for the sake of argument? Because I seriously have to question your logic if it's the former.
It is the latter. Again, this equality in everything is a slipperier slope than a lot of people probably think it is. I think gay marriage has become a twitch reflex for a lot of people in this country. No one is thinking about the "what happens after?"
So, what does happen after? What you actually believe, not something for the sake of argument.
I see a small push (but with good lawyers) for polygamy nation wide.
I see a small push (but with good lawyers) for polygamy nation wide.
Your arguments in this thread have been laughable.
Of the dozens of rebuttals and refutations I could use to end this pitiful debate, I'll go with the simplest and most direct: one which also happens to be amoral.
Marriage is a legal contract accepted nationwide which affords two people the ability to join their finances and lives in certain convenient ways. This contract also affords certain legal privilages above and beyond the contract itself (visitation rights, in heretance rights, citizenship rights, etc...)
Now, if marriage were simply the former - a contract between two people - then this wouldn't be a concern at all, since any two people could take advantage of it. As it would provide no boon beyond the contractual terms themselves, any couple (or group of n willing people) could trivially construct a similar contract for their own use. The term "marriage" means nothing, as it's just a contract, and there would be no way to prevent any two consenting adults from using it. There is thus no issue.
"Marriage," however, provides boons beyond the terms of the contract itself. Even if two people write an identical contract for themselves, they are not afforded the rights and privilages of others who also took the step of obtaining a marriage. In this case, restricting the right of any competent party to engage in this special, beneficial contract, is discriminatory. If we allow two people to take advantage of this, then we must allow ANY two people to do so. Anything less is discriminatory.
After all, what is the reason for marriage? Reproduction? If so, then barren women should be legally barred from it. Childless couples should be disbanded upon the infertility of either party. Why do we have this special instituation, with these special rights? What possible logical reason could there be for this discriminatory and arbitrary restriction on its exercise?
Marriage must be afforded to any two consenting parties so long as marriage provides boons unobtainable through other means.
As for polygamy, the boon is denied without distinction to ALL people. If everyone has a right to something, then it is fair. If no one has a right to something, then it is also fair. The problem arises when we afford the boon to some people, yet arbitrarily deny it to other people without just cause. Until someone can provide a non-faith-based, non-arbitrary reason to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals, then any discrimination is in this regard unacceptible.
In conclusion: stop making your bullshit slippery slope fallacy argument. It has no standing, and you have made not a single valid point thus far.
getavids, do you honestly believe in the "gay marriage" ---> "goat fucking" slippery slope, or are you just using it for the sake of argument? Because I seriously have to question your logic if it's the former.
It is the latter. Again, this equality in everything is a slipperier slope than a lot of people probably think it is. I think gay marriage has become a twitch reflex for a lot of people in this country. No one is thinking about the "what happens after?"
So, what does happen after? What you actually believe, not something for the sake of argument.
I see a small push (but with good lawyers) for polygamy nation wide.
Rym provided an excellent argument, so I'll just add my one question: so what? What negative effects would polygamy have on other people?
On the topic of consent: I group kids, people with sever mental disabilities, animals, coma patients and drunk chicks into the same category. None of those groups are in a condition to consent to sexual activities. Two perfectly stable well rounded people who probably share a similar life story and interests are more then able to consent to what ever want to.
On polygamy: I've got no problems with that. Heck it might even be fun. I don't like a lot of what goes on behind close doors in places where it's practiced. Sexual abuse and incest are rampant in those "close knit" groups.
I see a small push (but with good lawyers) for polygamy nation wide.
Your arguments in this thread have been laughable.
Of the dozens of rebuttals and refutations I could use to end this pitiful debate, I'll go with the simplest and most direct: one which also happens to be amoral.
Marriage is a legal contract accepted nationwide which affords two people the ability to join their finances and lives in certain convenient ways. This contract also affords certain legal privilages above and beyond the contract itself (visitation rights, in heretance rights, citizenship rights, etc...)
Now, if marriage were simply the former - a contract between two people - then this wouldn't be a concern at all, since any two people could take advantage of it. As it would provide no boon beyond the contractual terms themselves, any couple (or group of n willing people) could trivially construct a similar contract for their own use. The term "marriage" means nothing, as it's just a contract, and there would be no way to prevent any two consenting adults from using it. There is thus no issue.
"Marriage," however, provides boons beyond the terms of the contract itself. Even if two people write an identical contract for themselves, they are not afforded the rights and privilages of others who also took the step of obtaining a marriage. In this case, restricting the right of any competent party to engage in this special, beneficial contract, is discriminatory. If we allow two people to take advantage of this, then we must allow ANY two people to do so. Anything less is discriminatory.
After all, what is thereasonfor marriage? Reproduction? If so, then barren women should be legally barred from it. Childless couples should be disbanded upon the infertility of either party. Why do we have this special instituation, with these special rights? What possible logical reason could there be for this discriminatory and arbitrary restriction on its exercise?
Marriage must be afforded to any two consenting parties so long as marriage provides boons unobtainable through other means.
As for polygamy, the boon is denied without distinction to ALL people. If everyone has a right to something, then it is fair. If no one has a right to something, then it is also fair. The problem arises when we afford the boon tosomepeople, yet arbitrarily deny it to other peoplewithout just cause. Until someone can provide a non-faith-based, non-arbitrary reason to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals, then any discrimination is in this regard unacceptible.
In conclusion: stop making your bullshitslippery slope fallacyargument. It has no standing, and you have made not a single valid point thus far.
One of these days, I'm going to learn to make arguements this awesome. Some day.
(visitation rights, in heretance rights, citizenship rights, etc...)
Excellent argument, Rym. I am curious what these "in heretance rights" are though. I am married and I am afraid I am not taking full advantage of my rights.
1) Can the California Supreme Court do anything about Prop 8? 2) What is the legal history of marriage in America? 3) When did it stop being about raising a family? (lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce.)
I think that marriage should be a religious institution only.
I think the government should not issue "marriage" licenses. I think they should have ONE term for the legal contract, and it should apply to everybody. Call it civil union if you like...I don't care what it's called, but it needs to be distinctly separate from the religious institution of marriage. Then all the religious people who object to the sanctity of their sacrament being sullied can shut the hell up.
Separation of Church and State. We shouldn't legally sanction a religious sacrament. Any benefits from a non-religious institution (like the state or an employer) conferred to an individual and their spouse/family should be done so on a legal basis and not on the basis of religion.
If I ever get into politics, I will push that point heavily. I already intend to write my representatives about it, because it's a fucking OBVIOUS solution. Our government needs to divest itself of the policies that are derived solely from religious beliefs and not ethical ones.
Regarding polygamy: Legally, the concept of non-monogamy is tricky. Do you ensure all parties are consenting? Is the contract between a family unit, or is it between two people? I would love for there to be a way to legally recognize polyamorous relationships, but I understand the complexity and questionable practice thereof.
The problem with polygamy is that it seems to come in two kinds.
One kind is the harem situation. You know, the kind of thing you see in Utah where one dude oppresses a bunch of wives. It's not cool.
The other kind is when you have more than two people that come together, but all love each other as much as a husband and wife. They just happen to have more than two people. This is totally cool.
The problem is how do you tell one apart from the other? How can you allow the second while working to eliminate the first?
I couldn't agree more. How did the government get in the business of officiating marriages in the first place?
For most of history, government and religion have been the same thing. While the separation of the two is a fantastic idea, it's a relatively new and still ongoing one.
Once it starts giving legal rights and tax breaks to married couples that single people don't have, it has to keep records. If the government is going to give them special stuff, the government is going to officiate. edit: Also, what Alex said is also pretty much true.
Domestic violence (also known as domestic abuse or spousal abuse) occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate another. Domestic violence often refers to violence between spouses, or spousal abuse but can also include cohabitants and non-married intimate partners. Domestic violence occurs in all cultures; people of all races, ethnicities, religions, sexes and classes can be perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence is perpetrated by both men and women.
What you are referring to in particular are the Mormon ranches which use a combination of Domestic Violence, psychological domination, and religious texts to oppress women.
1) Can the California Supreme Court do anything about Prop 8? 2) What is the legal history of marriage in America? 3) When did it stop being about raising a family? (lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce.)
Your parenthetical remark makes me wonder whether these are sincere questions, but I can at least answer the first. No. The California supreme court had previously struck down a voter initiative banning gay marriage because it conflicted with rights granted by the constitution. Our constitution has been amended to no longer grant these rights.
1) Can the California Supreme Court do anything about Prop 8? 2) What is the legal history of marriage in America? 3) When did it stop being about raising a family? (lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce.)
Depending on a few things, this might be fixed in Federal Court. I honestly don't know what you mean by "lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce". Perhaps you read something in your state law that gave you the honest impression that this was the case. However, many if not most states have "no-fault" divorce laws now. Even in states where grounds must be pled, grounds are usually given as "irreconcilable differences". No one that I know (I did divorces for ten years back home and I dealt with custody and child support cases arising from divorces from foreign jurisdictions) uses infertility as a grounds for divorce.
1) Can the California Supreme Court do anything about Prop 8? 2) What is the legal history of marriage in America? 3) When did it stop being about raising a family? (lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce.)
Depending on a few things, this might be fixed in Federal Court. I honestly don't know what you mean by "lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce". Perhaps you read something in your state law that gave you the honest impression that this was the case. However, many if not most states have "no-fault" divorce laws now. Even in states where grounds must be pled, grounds are usually given as "irreconcilable differences". No one that I know (I did divorces for ten years back home and I dealt with custody and child support cases arising from divorces from foreign jurisdictions) uses infertility as a grounds for divorce.
When I read the CA Supreme Court opinion from (last year was it?) they referenced the shift in marriages from being "making babies" to companionship in that barren folk and elderly folk were allowed to marry as one of the grounds not to deny same-sex marriage. That is what I meant in point #3. I obviously did not write that point clearly.
Comments
EDIT: Actually, the HUGE problem with bestiality, other than the gigantic ick factor, goes back to an issue of consent. You can't get the goat to consent to sex, so if you have sex with it, you're committing rape.
It gets trickier if it's a male animal doing the fucking, but I'd say it's all sort of lumped together in one giant pile of "NO."
EDIT THE SECOND: That's neither contradictory nor ironic. Your choice of sexual partner in no way, shape, or form affects ANY person outside of that relationship. However, denying people access to certain legal rights based on their choice of sexual partner DOES affect their relationship, in a negative way.
Two consenting age gay men getting their groove on doesn't hurt you one goddamn bit. Those two getting married doesn't hurt you one bit. You denying them certain legal rights DOES hurt them. Less hurt. More buttsex.
Note that fucking goats, or whatever other wild thing you might suggest, is not a right. Especially if it interferes with someone else's rights. As for the goat, it can't consent, and you could likely hurt it. So no, people can't argue "I have a right to do whatever I want, even if it's fucking goats."
I'll point out that people made the same argument against making homosexual sex legal; after all, the act itself was banned in many states for a long time. It's now been about half a decade since the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional; I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed any significant push for legalized goat-fucking in those five years.
Of the dozens of rebuttals and refutations I could use to end this pitiful debate, I'll go with the simplest and most direct: one which also happens to be amoral.
Marriage is a legal contract accepted nationwide which affords two people the ability to join their finances and lives in certain convenient ways. This contract also affords certain legal privilages above and beyond the contract itself (visitation rights, in heretance rights, citizenship rights, etc...)
Now, if marriage were simply the former - a contract between two people - then this wouldn't be a concern at all, since any two people could take advantage of it. As it would provide no boon beyond the contractual terms themselves, any couple (or group of n willing people) could trivially construct a similar contract for their own use. The term "marriage" means nothing, as it's just a contract, and there would be no way to prevent any two consenting adults from using it. There is thus no issue.
"Marriage," however, provides boons beyond the terms of the contract itself. Even if two people write an identical contract for themselves, they are not afforded the rights and privilages of others who also took the step of obtaining a marriage. In this case, restricting the right of any competent party to engage in this special, beneficial contract, is discriminatory. If we allow two people to take advantage of this, then we must allow ANY two people to do so. Anything less is discriminatory.
After all, what is the reason for marriage? Reproduction? If so, then barren women should be legally barred from it. Childless couples should be disbanded upon the infertility of either party. Why do we have this special instituation, with these special rights? What possible logical reason could there be for this discriminatory and arbitrary restriction on its exercise?
Marriage must be afforded to any two consenting parties so long as marriage provides boons unobtainable through other means.
As for polygamy, the boon is denied without distinction to ALL people. If everyone has a right to something, then it is fair. If no one has a right to something, then it is also fair. The problem arises when we afford the boon to some people, yet arbitrarily deny it to other people without just cause. Until someone can provide a non-faith-based, non-arbitrary reason to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals, then any discrimination is in this regard unacceptible.
In conclusion: stop making your bullshit slippery slope fallacy argument. It has no standing, and you have made not a single valid point thus far.
On the topic of consent:
I group kids, people with sever mental disabilities, animals, coma patients and drunk chicks into the same category. None of those groups are in a condition to consent to sexual activities. Two perfectly stable well rounded people who probably share a similar life story and interests are more then able to consent to what ever want to.
On polygamy:
I've got no problems with that. Heck it might even be fun. I don't like a lot of what goes on behind close doors in places where it's practiced. Sexual abuse and incest are rampant in those "close knit" groups.
2) What is the legal history of marriage in America?
3) When did it stop being about raising a family? (lack of kid making ability still is grounds for divorce.)
I think the government should not issue "marriage" licenses. I think they should have ONE term for the legal contract, and it should apply to everybody. Call it civil union if you like...I don't care what it's called, but it needs to be distinctly separate from the religious institution of marriage. Then all the religious people who object to the sanctity of their sacrament being sullied can shut the hell up.
Separation of Church and State. We shouldn't legally sanction a religious sacrament. Any benefits from a non-religious institution (like the state or an employer) conferred to an individual and their spouse/family should be done so on a legal basis and not on the basis of religion.
If I ever get into politics, I will push that point heavily. I already intend to write my representatives about it, because it's a fucking OBVIOUS solution. Our government needs to divest itself of the policies that are derived solely from religious beliefs and not ethical ones.
Regarding polygamy: Legally, the concept of non-monogamy is tricky. Do you ensure all parties are consenting? Is the contract between a family unit, or is it between two people? I would love for there to be a way to legally recognize polyamorous relationships, but I understand the complexity and questionable practice thereof.
One kind is the harem situation. You know, the kind of thing you see in Utah where one dude oppresses a bunch of wives. It's not cool.
The other kind is when you have more than two people that come together, but all love each other as much as a husband and wife. They just happen to have more than two people. This is totally cool.
The problem is how do you tell one apart from the other? How can you allow the second while working to eliminate the first?
edit: Also, what Alex said is also pretty much true.
No. The California supreme court had previously struck down a voter initiative banning gay marriage because it conflicted with rights granted by the constitution. Our constitution has been amended to no longer grant these rights.