Are there actually any good arguments out there against allowing gay marriage?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Xan Krieger:
Here in North Carolina it's against our state constitution to allow gay marriage as decided by the people. Don't think the supreme court's ruling applies here actually,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_North_Carolina
So yeah, the supreme court may recognize it but not the state.

I can't think of a single reason why the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't apply. It's not like states had the option to keep segregating schools in the 60s just because they wanted to really badly.

Xan Krieger:
They could call it marriage between themselves if they wanted, it just wouldn't appear that way on government forms. Everyone would have (legally speaking) a civil union, they can call it whatever they want between themselves.

And what would be the benefit be to offset the cost of reprinting every marriage license and every bit of legislation that refers to marriage for the entire nation? Because it seems to me that you need a lot more than "it keeps the religious happy because gays aren't getting married".

Aris Khandr:

And what would be the benefit be to offset the cost of reprinting every marriage license and every bit of legislation that refers to marriage for the entire nation? Because it seems to me that you need a lot more than "it keeps the religious happy because gays aren't getting married".

Hmmm, actually, now that you mention it. How much would that cost? I've no idea, really. While legislation can simply get errata'ed, but replacing documents could rack the costs up a bit I suppose.

But I know for a fact that we're not reprinting our legislation literature every time a law is passed or changed over here.

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
One side doesn't want to lose the right to marriage, they just don't want others to have the right to marriage.

One side wants the right to marriage, they want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

If you remove the right to marriage it doesn't solve either situation. Saying that "You can call it mariage but in the eyes of the law it isn't" doesn't solve anything, because they're not married. You can call marriage Blue Nympth Fairy Blessing if you want, but if the law says it's called marriage, it's called marriage. No amount of pretending otherwise would change that.

Both sides want marriage. Not civil unions and no marriage; marriage. Pretending doesn't change the law.

I've just been trying to reach a compromise that helps people rather than some long (possibly endless) fight. You sound more the "all or nothing" type. At a negotiating table that's not exactly the best thing to be. You have to be willing to deal with people, lose a word but gain the benefits and the equality.

Lets put it a different way:

Your compromise? No one is allowed to sit at the front of the bus, it's illegal for everyone, that way everyone is equal. Which, if you haven't noticed, is entirely missing the point and is lose/lose for everyone.

You're trying to compromise for no reason, and by doing so you're failing in all aspects. Your compromise means everyone loses. Everyone. No one gains what they want, and much more people lose rights.

Instead, a far better way to solve the situation would be if no one loses anything. A far better way to solve the situation would be to let one side gain rights, without anyone else losing any.

Pluvia:

Your compromise? No one is allowed to sit at the front of the bus, it's illegal for everyone, that way everyone is equal. Which, if you haven't noticed, is entirely missing the point and is lose/lose for everyone.

Only that the front of the bus is no longer called "front of the bus", it is now called "nifty place", and everyone has the right to sit in the "nifty place".

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:
One side doesn't want to lose the right to marriage, they just don't want others to have the right to marriage.

One side wants the right to marriage, they want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

If you remove the right to marriage it doesn't solve either situation. Saying that "You can call it mariage but in the eyes of the law it isn't" doesn't solve anything, because they're not married. You can call marriage Blue Nympth Fairy Blessing if you want, but if the law says it's called marriage, it's called marriage. No amount of pretending otherwise would change that.

Both sides want marriage. Not civil unions and no marriage; marriage. Pretending doesn't change the law.

I've just been trying to reach a compromise that helps people rather than some long (possibly endless) fight. You sound more the "all or nothing" type. At a negotiating table that's not exactly the best thing to be. You have to be willing to deal with people, lose a word but gain the benefits and the equality.

Lets put it a different way:

Your compromise? No one is allowed to sit at the front of the bus, it's illegal for everyone, that way everyone is equal. Which, if you haven't noticed, is entirely missing the point and is lose/lose for everyone.

You're trying to compromise for no reason, and by doing so you're failing in all aspects. Your compromise means everyone loses. Everyone. No one gains what they want, and much more people lose rights.

Instead, a far better way to solve the situation would be if no one loses anything. A far better way to solve the situation would be to let one side gain rights, without anyone else losing any.

I really think you're just getting hung up on semantics here.

If we change the definition of marriage, homosexuals get every benefit of a married couple.

If we change the name of those benefits to another word...they still get all the benefits of a married couple.

Gays get what they want either way.

Vegosiux:
Only that the front of the bus is no longer called "front of the bus", it is now called "nifty place", and everyone has the right to sit in the "nifty place".

Incorrect, for the analogy to work it would have to be illegal for all.

Shadowstar38:
I really think you're just getting hung up on semantics here.

If we change the definition of marriage, homosexuals get every benefit of a married couple.

If we change the name of those benefits to another word...they still get all the benefits of a married couple.

Gays get what they want either way.

It's not getting hung up on semantics, it's getting hung up on the law.

They want equality. Not seperate but equal, just straight up equal. Equality, not "sorta the same but not the same, and it's still illegal to be equal".

Pluvia:
Not seperate but equal

Dude...straight couples and gay couples would be given the same rights under the same word in this situation. Instead of being black and white fountains, everyone drinks out the one marked "homosapian".

Pluvia:

Vegosiux:
Only that the front of the bus is no longer called "front of the bus", it is now called "nifty place", and everyone has the right to sit in the "nifty place".

Incorrect, for the analogy to work it would have to be illegal for all.

No, legal for all. That's the entire point of the argument you've been assaulting. It would be legal for everyone to be there, just the place would be called something else.

Imagine the street you live on had its name changed. Would you say that you're now homeless, because you can't return to the address you used to live at? How has changing the "name" of your address taken anything away from you? Please, explain.

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:
Not seperate but equal

Dude...straight couples and gay couples would be given the same rights under the same word in this situation. Instead of being black and white fountains, everyone drinks out the one marked "homosapian".

And to get to that situation you would need to remove rights from some people and restrict rights for others, simply because some people don't want everyone to be equal.

The same people that don't want everyone to be equal also don't want to lose their rights.

Don't you see? How is removing their rights that they don't want to lose solving their situation?

WHY are you doing that is what you need to ask. You're not solving the situation, you're doing the one thing that nobody wants, for no reason.

Vegosiux:

Pluvia:
Incorrect, for the analogy to work it would have to be illegal for all.

No, legal for all. That's the entire point of the argument you've been assaulting. It would be legal for everyone to be there, just the place would be called something else.

Imagine the street you live on had its name changed. Would you say that you're now homeless, because you can't return to the address you used to live at? How has changing the "name" of your address taken anything away from you? Please, explain.

No, illegal for all.

Here's a simple question: If you can't get legally married, can you get legally married?

Your address analogy is faulty. You're asking what it's taking away from you, when you should be asking why are we changing the name. The whole homeless part isn't remotely relevant.

Pluvia:

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:
Not seperate but equal

Dude...straight couples and gay couples would be given the same rights under the same word in this situation. Instead of being black and white fountains, everyone drinks out the one marked "homosapian".

And to get to that situation you would need to remove rights from some people and restrict rights for others, simply because some people don't want everyone to be equal.

The same people that don't want everyone to be equal also don't want to lose their rights.

Don't you see? How is removing their rights that they don't want to lose solving their situation?

WHY are you doing that is what you need to ask. You're not solving the situation, you're doing the one thing that nobody wants, for no reason.

You don't seem to understand that no rights are being taken. Anyone can go to a church and get "married". It's the legal government document that's important to the discussion.

Pluvia:

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:
Not seperate but equal

Dude...straight couples and gay couples would be given the same rights under the same word in this situation. Instead of being black and white fountains, everyone drinks out the one marked "homosapian".

And to get to that situation you would need to remove rights from some people and restrict rights for others, simply because some people don't want everyone to be equal.

The same people that don't want everyone to be equal also don't want to lose their rights.

Don't you see? How is removing their rights that they don't want to lose solving their situation?

WHY are you doing that is what you need to ask. You're not solving the situation, you're doing the one thing that nobody wants, for no reason.

They're not losing a right, it's being called something else. The process of getting the benefits is still the same, the benefits themselves are still the same, just one word is being changed. Still wanna go to a church and have some big expensive ceremony? Go for it. Wanna do it low key at someone's house? By all means do it. It's just that when you go to wherever you have to go (some government office I guess, I don't know *foreveralone*) the thing that says "marriage license" would instead say "civil union license". Nobody loses rights, people gain rights.

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:

Xan Krieger:
They could call it marriage between themselves if they wanted, it just wouldn't appear that way on government forms. Everyone would have (legally speaking) a civil union, they can call it whatever they want between themselves.

One side doesn't want to lose the right to marriage, they just don't want others to have the right to marriage.

One side wants the right to marriage, they want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

If you remove the right to marriage it doesn't solve either situation. Saying that "You can call it mariage but in the eyes of the law it isn't" doesn't solve anything, because they're not married. You can call marriage Blue Nympth Fairy Blessing if you want, but if the law says it's called marriage, it's called marriage. No amount of pretending otherwise would change that.

Both sides want marriage. Not civil unions and no marriage; marriage. Pretending doesn't change the law.

I've just been trying to reach a compromise that helps people rather than some long (possibly endless) fight. You sound more the "all or nothing" type. At a negotiating table that's not exactly the best thing to be. You have to be willing to deal with people, lose a word but gain the benefits and the equality.

Golden Mean Fallacy; you're assuming that just because it's a compromise means it's good. It really isn't; Gays want to be equal, denying the name is saying "you're not equal of the name, and we'd sooner burn it than give it to you." You're ignoring the real meat of the issue here; your compromise is just going to make everyone angry, the bigots who lose marriage are only going to get more hostile to homosexuals, who are once again being told "you're not worthy."

Shaoken:

Xan Krieger:

Pluvia:

One side doesn't want to lose the right to marriage, they just don't want others to have the right to marriage.

One side wants the right to marriage, they want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

If you remove the right to marriage it doesn't solve either situation. Saying that "You can call it mariage but in the eyes of the law it isn't" doesn't solve anything, because they're not married. You can call marriage Blue Nympth Fairy Blessing if you want, but if the law says it's called marriage, it's called marriage. No amount of pretending otherwise would change that.

Both sides want marriage. Not civil unions and no marriage; marriage. Pretending doesn't change the law.

I've just been trying to reach a compromise that helps people rather than some long (possibly endless) fight. You sound more the "all or nothing" type. At a negotiating table that's not exactly the best thing to be. You have to be willing to deal with people, lose a word but gain the benefits and the equality.

Golden Mean Fallacy; you're assuming that just because it's a compromise means it's good. It really isn't; Gays want to be equal, denying the name is saying "you're not equal of the name, and we'd sooner burn it than give it to you." You're ignoring the real meat of the issue here; your compromise is just going to make everyone angry, the bigots who lose marriage are only going to get more hostile to homosexuals, who are once again being told "you're not worthy."

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The way I see it is that since marriage is between a man and a woman it's obsolete now and should be replaced by something more modern and inclusive. What you see as scuttling a ship instead of surrendering I see as burning the old wooden ship and building an ironclad. The old word served it's purpose but now into the dustbin of history it goes.

edit: when I wake up in the morning I'm probably gonna have a hundred "quoted" messages in my inbox fml

Shadowstar38:
You don't seem to understand that no rights are being taken. Anyone can go to a church and get "married". It's the legal government document that's important to the discussion.

I don't think you understand, it's the government that legally marries people, not the church. If you're not legally married, you're not legally married. It doesn't matter if you pretend to get married, it's not legal unless it's legal.

If the government says you're not legally married then you're not legally married. If the government says that everyone that was legally married is no longer legally married, instead they're in a civil partnership, they're no longer legally married. It's that simple.

In his compromise, the right to marriage is taken away from married couples, for no reason.

Xan Krieger:
They're not losing a right, it's being called something else. The process of getting the benefits is still the same, the benefits themselves are still the same, just one word is being changed. Still wanna go to a church and have some big expensive ceremony? Go for it. Wanna do it low key at someone's house? By all means do it. It's just that when you go to wherever you have to go (some government office I guess, I don't know *foreveralone*) the thing that says "marriage license" would instead say "civil union license". Nobody loses rights, people gain rights.

They're losing the right to marriage. Like you said, no one can be legally married. Your compromise is to remove rights and make it illegal for everyone.

Lose/Lose. Everyone loses. Rights are taken away.

Xan Krieger:

Shaoken:

Xan Krieger:
I've just been trying to reach a compromise that helps people rather than some long (possibly endless) fight. You sound more the "all or nothing" type. At a negotiating table that's not exactly the best thing to be. You have to be willing to deal with people, lose a word but gain the benefits and the equality.

Golden Mean Fallacy; you're assuming that just because it's a compromise means it's good. It really isn't; Gays want to be equal, denying the name is saying "you're not equal of the name, and we'd sooner burn it than give it to you." You're ignoring the real meat of the issue here; your compromise is just going to make everyone angry, the bigots who lose marriage are only going to get more hostile to homosexuals, who are once again being told "you're not worthy."

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The way I see it is that since marriage is between a man and a woman it's obsolete now and should be replaced by something more modern and inclusive. What you see as scuttling a ship instead of surrendering I see as burning the old wooden ship and building an ironclad. The old word served it's purpose but now into the dustbin of history it goes.

edit: when I wake up in the morning I'm probably gonna have a hundred "quoted" messages in my inbox fml

And why, out of all words, do we need to make a conscious effort not to allow the definition of marriage to 'change'? You have a very bizarre and seemingly baseless desire to keep this one word meaning one particular thing without any particular justification for why it, out of all words, should not be able to 'change'.

Pluvia:

Shadowstar38:
You don't seem to understand that no rights are being taken. Anyone can go to a church and get "married". It's the legal government document that's important to the discussion.

I don't think you understand, it's the government that legally marries people, not the church. If you're not legally married, you're not legally married. It doesn't matter if you pretend to get married, it's not legal unless it's legal.

If the government says you're not legally married then you're not legally married. If the government says that everyone that was legally married is no longer legally married, instead they're in a civil partnership, they're no longer legally married. It's that simple.

In his compromise, the right to marriage is taken away from married couples, for no reason.

Why do you care about having the right to marry?

Xan Krieger:

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The way I see it is that since marriage is between a man and a woman it's obsolete now and should be replaced by something more modern and inclusive.

So you think whenever the laws regarding marriage are changed the term used to describe it should be scrapped each time, even though it would serve only to act in direct opposition to the entire point of changing it? The idea is fundamentally counterproductive.

Xan Krieger:
I wouldn't phrase it like that. The way I see it is that since marriage is between a man and a woman it's obsolete now and should be replaced by something more modern and inclusive. What you see as scuttling a ship instead of surrendering I see as burning the old wooden ship and building an ironclad. The old word served it's purpose but now into the dustbin of history it goes.

edit: when I wake up in the morning I'm probably gonna have a hundred "quoted" messages in my inbox fml

The only problem is that once marriage was a man's proof of ownership, then later it was between a white man and a white woman. Marriage has changed and expanded over the years, so why is changing it this time any different from the more radical "a woman's not a man's property" that it started off as?

Shadowstar38:
Why do you care about having the right to marry?

What reason is there to remove the right from everyone?

Pluvia:

No, illegal for all.

Here's a simple question: If you can't get legally married, can you get legally married?

Meaningless question. Before we can address it, we need to answer a different one:

What does "getting legally married" mean? Do not answer with a tautology. Because you know full well that what I am actually asking is this:

What is the result of "getting legally married", what legally established rights and benefits you gain by "getting legally married"?

Because before we establish what substance is described with "getting legally married", we don't even know what we're talking about.

Oh and by the way, tautologies aren't going to cut it here, either, everyone can be a smartass with tautologies, but they're utterly useless in any kind of discussion - and most of all, they don't do anything to establish what we are talking about.

Your address analogy is faulty. You're asking what it's taking away from you, when you should be asking why are we changing the name. The whole homeless part isn't remotely relevant.

Okay, let's take this step by step then.

1) There's a street called "White Street".

2) An old law, Law 3a/36 says "Only white people are allowed on White Street."

3) Other people want to be allowed on White Street, because it's a lovely place to visit, take a walk through, and live on, and it's objectively unfair that only white people are allowed to enjoy that lovely niceness.

4) There are still some people who think only white people should be allowed on White Street, but they're a bunch of assholes.

5) The city council agrees that those people are assholes, and that non-white people should be allowed to enjoy all that lovely niceness too, so it decides to make steps to let everyone visit, take a walk through, and live in that lovely nice place, if they want to; they agree that Law 3a/36 needs to be modernized as to let everyone enjoy what only the privileged few get to enjoy now.

5) The city council changes the name from "White Street" to "Everyone's Street."

6) The city council changes Law 3a/36 to "Everyone is allowed on Everyone's Street."

7) The street, formerly called "White Street", now called "Everyone's Street", is still a lovely place to visit, take a walk through, and live on, and, in fact, is the very same location it used to be. But all kinds of different people are happily visiting, taking walks through, and living on it as we speak, and they're all enjoying all the lovely niceness that only white people used to be allowed to enjoy.

8) No law in existance bans anyone from White Street, in fact, no law in existance even refers to a "White Street" at all anymore. So it's definitely not illegal to be on White Street, it just happens to not legally exist anymore. Physically, of course, it still exists and is completely unchanged, only that it's called "Everyone's Street" now. But the law doesn't care if the people still refer to it by its former name casually, as long as they use the new name in all their official correspondence.

9) If some of the assholes mentioned under 4) try anything hateful towards the new inhabitants they get a swift kick in the ass from the police, because the council also decided the kicks they were getting before were too mild for hateful jerks.

And, oh look, my patience meter has depleted. Explaining math is way more fun. And, well, it really doesn't get any clearer than this.

Pluvia:

Shadowstar38:
Why do you care about having the right to marry?

What reason is there to remove the right from everyone?

We're not. We're changing the name of the rights. It's the same rights as it had always been. Let me rephrase the question.

If the right to be married didn't come with any tangible changes before and after, would you still be fighting for that right?

Shaoken:
The only problem is that once marriage was a man's proof of ownership, then later it was between a white man and a white woman. Marriage has changed and expanded over the years, so why is changing it this time any different from the more radical "a woman's not a man's property" that it started off as?

Because it's fun to trick bigoted idiots into thinking they've won, and laugh at their stupidity, while those who fought for the rights and benefits marriage brings which were unfairly denied to them have gotten those exact rights.

Yes, this one is kind of crass. A more down-to-earth reason would be that content is simply all that matters in this case, we're not trying to give homosexual couples a word, we're trying to give them the content of that word.

Pluvia:

Shadowstar38:
You don't seem to understand that no rights are being taken. Anyone can go to a church and get "married". It's the legal government document that's important to the discussion.

I don't think you understand, it's the government that legally marries people, not the church. If you're not legally married, you're not legally married. It doesn't matter if you pretend to get married, it's not legal unless it's legal.

If the government says you're not legally married then you're not legally married. If the government says that everyone that was legally married is no longer legally married, instead they're in a civil partnership, they're no longer legally married. It's that simple.

In his compromise, the right to marriage is taken away from married couples, for no reason.

Let me take a crack at this and I'll try to avoid putting words in previous posters' mouths.

A key problem here is that many people arguing on behalf of gay marriage see no religious problem, or do not see marriage as a religious institution. On the other hand, people arguing against gay marriage see marriage as a religious institution limited, by religious doctrines, to a relationship between a man and a woman. The central problem is whether marriage is or is not a religious institution.

Xan's proposal would find a compromise by taking the religious element out of the equation. The government continues to offer people the legal benefits of marriage through civil unions, and couples may continue to get married through a church or other private venue if they so choose. Therefore, religious followers who do not believe that gay marriages are valid are free to continue believing so, while those who see no problem with gay marriages can perform them, all while everyone has equal access to the strictly legal benefits of marriage that are currently offered (through the more neutral term "civil unions").

All of this makes a certain kind of sense, especially when seen in light of the doctrine of separation between church and state. Then again, it is largely a semantic trick to make people happy. Then again . . . again . . . if it actually would result in a working compromise, it would be an idea worth consideration at least. I don't really have an answer here, I'm just trying to clarify a position.

In direct response to the original question, I have heard another secular argument against gay marriage regarding gender roles. Traditionally, marriage has been between a man and a woman in our society and this distinction helps people develop healthy identities. Eliminating the distinction in marriage would erode the social distinction between men and women (not necessarily a negative distinction, just a concession that there are differences between the genders worthy of social recognition). Of course, your mileage may vary.

Vegosiux:

Pluvia:

No, illegal for all.

Here's a simple question: If you can't get legally married, can you get legally married?

Meaningless question.

No it's not, it's completely and utterly 100% relevant. I've cut the rest of the post because, quite simply, we're not having this discussion if you're not willing to answer questions. Discussions are a two way street, you can go on and on and think you can ask questions without answering any in return, but if you think I'm going to entertain the idea of letting you ignore what you don't want to answer, think again. There's no discussion to be had if you're not interested in trying.

Simply put, if you're not willing to take the time to answer simple questions, I'm not willing to take the time to answer yours.

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:

Shadowstar38:
Why do you care about having the right to marry?

What reason is there to remove the right from everyone?

We're not. We're changing the name of the rights. It's the same rights as it had always been. Let me rephrase the question.

If the right to be married didn't come with any tangible changes before and after, would you still be fighting for that right?

But you are, that's the point. If you're removing the right to marriage you're removing the right to marriage.

And do you mean if there was no benefits to getting married compared to being unmarried, would I still be fighting for that right if it was illegal for some to get married? If so, of course.

If you don't think the word marriage is the important part, if you think it's the content it provides that's the important part, then why are you making such a big deal out of the word that you would make it so no one is allowed to get legally married? If the words not important, why go out of your way to change it to something that neither side wants?

Agitated Owl:
Let me take a crack at this and I'll try to avoid putting words in previous posters' mouths.

A key problem here is that many people arguing on behalf of gay marriage see no religious problem, or do not see marriage as a religious institution. On the other hand, people arguing against gay marriage see marriage as a religious institution limited, by religious doctrines, to a relationship between a man and a woman. The central problem is whether marriage is or is not a religious institution.

Xan's proposal would find a compromise by taking the religious element out of the equation. The government continues to offer people the legal benefits of marriage through civil unions, and couples may continue to get married through a church or other private venue if they so choose. Therefore, religious followers who do not believe that gay marriages are valid are free to continue believing so, while those who see no problem with gay marriages can perform them, all while everyone has equal access to the strictly legal benefits of marriage that are currently offered (through the more neutral term "civil unions").

All of this makes a certain kind of sense, especially when seen in light of the doctrine of separation between church and state. Then again, it is largely a semantic trick to make people happy. Then again . . . again . . . if it actually would result in a working compromise, it would be an idea worth consideration at least. I don't really have an answer here, I'm just trying to clarify a position.

The problem with this is you're assuming the church, or a religious institution, can marry you. It's the government that legally marries people, the wedding ceremony or any form of religions institution isn't necessary to becoming legally married. You say "couples may continue to get married through a church or other private venue if they so choose", but they can't, it's the government that marries people.

Even if you pretend you're married, even if someone else says you're married, if you're not legally married, you're not legally married. Civil unions create civil partnerships, not marriages, so it doesn't solve that problem.

It doesn't matter if religious followers do not believe that gay marriages are valid, it matters what the law is. You can pretend you're married, you can pretend others aren't married, the only thing that matters is the law.

Skip right to the bottom if you're only interested in that answer. You're not going to like it, though, I'm sure.

Pluvia:

Vegosiux:

Pluvia:

No, illegal for all.

Here's a simple question: If you can't get legally married, can you get legally married?

Meaningless question.

No it's not, it's completely and utterly 100% relevant.

Right now, it's a bunch of words, and you refuse to attribute any meaning to them. I requested that you provide the substance, but instead you chose the path of antagonizing me. And frankly, I have a hunch why.

I've cut the rest of the post because, quite simply, we're not having this discussion if you're not willing to answer questions.

Have I stated that I would not answer your question? I don't remember doing that, I only remember asking you to provide more context, provide the meaning behind the phrase you used before I do so.

Discussions are a two way street

And that is why you get to dictate the terms, gotcha. Because it's a two-way street, it must happen on your terms and your terms alone, and if I don't play by your rules, there will be no discussion. Makes sense, since discussions are a two-way street, one party gets to dictate the terms unconditionally.

you can go on and on and think you can ask questions without answering any in return, but if you think I'm going to entertain the idea of letting you ignore what you don't want to answer, think again.

I told you I was going to address it when you clarify. I'm starting to get the feeling you cut out the rest of my post because you didn't read it. Because, had you read it, you'd notice that I said, and I quote

Before we can address it (your question), we need to answer a different one:

Because before we establish what substance is described with "getting legally married", we don't even know what we're talking about.

See, there's a subtle implication of "I kind of need this part I'm uncertain about cleared up before I'm confident with continuing."

There's no discussion to be had if you're not interesting in trying.

Yeah, I took over half an hour of my time to write up a post to relay my thoughts about what you said in the most clear and concise manner I could conjure up because I'm not interested in trying to have a discussion.

Makes perfect sense.

I took my time to reply and explain what I need and why I need it, and you insult me. Between the two of us, I highly doubt that am the one who's "not interested in trying".

Simply put, if you're not willing to take the time to answer simple questions, I'm not willing to take the time to answer yours.

Simply put, your question isn't simple.

I can't answer a question, before I know what's being asked, that's why I'm going to, again, politely request that you elaborate on the meaning and substance of the words you used, so that I may avoid misinterpreting it and answering something you didn't ask.

Actually, now that I think of it...yeah this isn't the first time, we've come across each other before in a different thread, and you were about this belligerent then, too. Well that explains those feelings of deja vu.

Bottom line is; the moment you elaborate on what you mean by "getting legally married" - the act of signing a document; acquisition of certain rights and benefits; being officially recognized as someone's spouse; being involved in something that's called "marriage"; being involved in the specific kind of relationship that's currently named "marriage" (yes, there's a difference); I don't know any of those? All of those? Something else? - I'm going to answer.

Right now my best answer could only be "Depends on how your jurisdiction handles a non liquet"[1], but I do not find that answer satisfactory, and want to come to a better one. For that, I need some more substance.

Great, another twenty minutes of my life just sailed by. But hey, I'm "not interested in trying", right?

EDIT: Just for fun; apparently both "non liquet" and "lacuna" translate to my language as "legal void". Scary, huh?

[1] Remember, the premise is that the word "marriage" would not be used in legislation at all

Is it wrong that I'm okay with the government "disallowing" gay marriage when the advocates are so disingenuous?

They are fighting for neither the right to marry nor equality. They are looking to slightly expand the circle of people who can claim government granted benefits. Unless they call for the end of these advantages (or the ability for anyone to marry as they choose and so claim them) they are no better than those who currently reject homosexual marriage.

Mr.BadExample:
Is it wrong that I'm okay with the government "disallowing" gay marriage when the advocates are so disingenuous?

They are fighting for neither the right to marry nor equality. They are looking to slightly expand the circle of people who can claim government granted benefits. Unless they call for the end of these advantages (or the ability for anyone to marry as they choose and so claim them) they are no better than those who currently reject homosexual marriage.

Rubbish. Not every legal system handles gay de facto couples the same way, but in places where gay marriage doesn't exist, there are people fighting to bring it about.

Pluvia:

And do you mean if there was no benefits to getting married compared to being unmarried, would I still be fighting for that right if it was illegal for some to get married? If so, of course.

Well...that's just bizarre. I'm pretty sure you're in the minority here. See, most people on the side of civil rights focus on rights that have a practical implication.

Fighting against Xan's proposal is fighting for the right of a title, which is kind of frivolous when all people like me want is to be able to adopt a kid and see our partners in the hospital, ect...

You need priorities is what I'm saying.

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:

And do you mean if there was no benefits to getting married compared to being unmarried, would I still be fighting for that right if it was illegal for some to get married? If so, of course.

Well...that's just bizarre. I'm pretty sure you're in the minority here. See, most people on the side of civil rights focus on rights that have a practical implication.

As much as I'm wary of these sorts of comparisons, is there any practical reason why black people shouldn't always ride at the back of the bus?

Inequality will always exist so long as people aren't equal. Gay marriage might seem like little more than a symbolic step, but it's a massive symbol.

thaluikhain:

As much as I'm wary of these sorts of comparisons, is there any practical reason why black people shouldn't always ride at the back of the bus?

Freedom of movement in public spaces, I'd say.

Incidentally, where I grew up the back of the bus was the "cool" part of the bus. A two decades younger (and more ignorant) me would likely be perplexed that the black people in USA got upset because they kept being told to sit in the best part of the bus.

Inequality will always exist so long as people aren't equal. Gay marriage might seem like little more than a symbolic step, but it's a massive symbol.

See, there's one of my problems. Symbolism and I, well, let's just say we don't get along too well.

Vegosiux:

Inequality will always exist so long as people aren't equal. Gay marriage might seem like little more than a symbolic step, but it's a massive symbol.

See, there's one of my problems. Symbolism and I, well, let's just say we don't get along too well.

Fair enough, though perhaps "symbolic" isn't quite the best word.

As long as society is granting a right to someone, and withholding it to someone else, that society is saying something about those two groups.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked