Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

People love there pets. If love is the only criteria why don't we allow this type of marrage.

Rather than mock you, as I'm sure most people do when this ridiculous argument is made,let me try to give you a real answer.

Marriage conveys certain rights: you can file taxes jointly, receive health care and other workplace benefits, inherit child care responsibilities and estates without a will, and do many other things as a single entity both in the public and private sector. There are obviously many reasons that gay couples deserve these benefits on equal footing with straight couples. There is no reason to extend most of this stuff to any human-non-human relationship. Dogs don't file taxes, they can't care for children, they shouldn't inherit estates, etc.

This is why it's so offensive when people make this argument. You are essentially saying that a person in a homosexual relationship is no better than a dog by saying that if we're going to extend certain benefits provided by the government and the private sector to them we might as well extend them to dogs too.

 

[Henry Ford]

People love there pets. If love is the only criteria why don't we allow this type of marrage.

 

[Henry Ford]

People love there pets. If love is the only criteria why don't we allow this type of marrage.

Rather than mock you, as I'm sure most people do when this ridiculous argument is made,let me try to give you a real answer.

Marriage conveys certain rights: you can file taxes jointly, receive health care and other workplace benefits, inherit child care responsibilities and estates without a will, and do many other things as a single entity both in the public and private sector. There are obviously many reasons that gay couples deserve these benefits on equal footing with straight couples. There is no reason to extend most of this stuff to any human-non-human relationship. Dogs don't file taxes, they can't care for children, they shouldn't inherit estates, etc.

This is why it's so offensive when people make this argument. You are essentially saying that a person in a homosexual relationship is no better than a dog by saying that if we're going to extend certain benefits provided by the government and the private sector to them we might as well extend them to dogs too.

Seriously, it's easier than that. Pets don't have the capacity to consent or contract. Marriage is a contract of consent. Pets can't enter into marriage.

 

[Todd Andrews]

People love there pets. If love is the only criteria why don't we allow this type of marrage.

Man on dog!!1

 

[TobiasFunke]

People love there pets. If love is the only criteria why don't we allow this type of marrage.

Rather than mock you, as I'm sure most people do when this ridiculous argument is made,let me try to give you a real answer.

Marriage conveys certain rights: you can file taxes jointly, receive health care and other workplace benefits, inherit child care responsibilities and estates without a will, and do many other things as a single entity both in the public and private sector. There are obviously many reasons that gay couples deserve these benefits on equal footing with straight couples. There is no reason to extend most of this stuff to any human-non-human relationship. Dogs don't file taxes, they can't care for children, they shouldn't inherit estates, etc.

This is why it's so offensive when people make this argument. You are essentially saying that a person in a homosexual relationship is no better than a dog by saying that if we're going to extend certain benefits provided by the government and the private sector to them we might as well extend them to dogs too.

Seriously, it's easier than that. Pets don't have the capacity to consent or contract. Marriage is a contract of consent. Pets can't enter into marriage.

Well yeah, that too. I figure he could probably come up with some non-human that somehow could express consent or something, so I figured head it off at the pass and explain how silly it is and also why it's offensive.

 

[Joe Summer]

So the key is first to get classified as a group. The left loves placing people in groups. Then a group can get special laws passed for them. Gays had the right to marry before just like all other Americans. So if there were enough people to get group status who want to marry their pets then what?

Do pets have the capacity to consent?

 

[timschochet]

A few of the courts have raised the issue of polygamy, since unlike the animal question, polygamy could involve consenting adults. How would you guys answer that question? My answer has always been that there are millions of gay people seeking to wed, while polygamy remains a very rare thing. Yet philosophically that never seemed satisfactory to me.

 

[The Commish]

Another victory against bigotry.

Ultimately this is about the indifferent accepting that this change doesn't impact them one bit. The "homosexuality is wrong" bigots are still there, they just lost their once dependable ally.

I don't get this, so if you're against gay marrage you're immediately classified as a bigot?

If you are looking to single out a specific group and deny them rights, freedom and equality under the law... Basically asking them to be lesser citizens - what would you call it?

Because the government ties rights, freedoms and equality under the law to "marriage" doesn't mean a person can't be for all that equality and against the idea of gay marriage. It's short sighted to lump them all together IMO.

Don't see it being shortsighted at all.Personally I don't believe govt should favor any sort of relationship, married, single or otherwise .

However, if you extend some status due to marriage and someone asks for that privilege to extend to everyone except a certain group, that to me sounds like you are asking not just for bigotry but govt sponsored discrimination.

And what I am saying to you is that not everyone is against gay marriage because it's a way of keeping other citizens from being treated equally. I like you don't believe the gov't should be in the "marriage" business because to me, it's a union outside anything that government should be a part of. It's a means to an end with the way our system is set up. There's a philosophical difference that can't be reconciled. Doesn't mean people aren't tolerant.

Actually, to ask someone to not have the same rights and freedom as you because they are of a certain "group" would seem to me the very definition of intolerance.Would you suggest that I would be Intolerant if I did not accept that blacks and white should marry? After all, it may offend me. I should have the RIGHT to not see others have the same rights as I hold!

See?

You are arguing a point that I'm not making and that I agree with you on. I don't know how else to say it In your example, it's one thing to disagree with interracial marriage but understand why it has to exist in our society. It's another to disagree and try to prevent it. It's one thing to disagree with same sex marriage but understand why it has to exist with the way our laws are written. It's another to disagree with it and try to prevent people from doing it.

Totally reasonable. I won't ever deny someone the right to express that they feel something is wrong, even if I feel that's somewhat misguided or even bigoted, or worse.

So long as one does not look to limit freedoms and equality. And for those reading to whom it pertains, calling it marriage like everyone else is part of that equality.

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

A few of the courts have raised the issue of polygamy, since unlike the animal question, polygamy could involve consenting adults. How would you guys answer that question? My answer has always been that there are millions of gay people seeking to wed, while polygamy remains a very rare thing. Yet philosophically that never seemed satisfactory to me.

I think that's a big part of it. The other issue is that we would have to create an entire new body of law to deal with issues of divorce and custody and inheritance, etc. Gay marriage is way easier administratively because it can be administered exactly the same way that straight marriages are.

I'm not morally opposed to polygamy, though. If they can hammer out all the details, go for it.

 

[Koya]

A few of the courts have raised the issue of polygamy, since unlike the animal question, polygamy could involve consenting adults. How would you guys answer that question? My answer has always been that there are millions of gay people seeking to wed, while polygamy remains a very rare thing. Yet philosophically that never seemed satisfactory to me.

Do we believe in freedom or not? Do we believe that the individual, if they do no harm, should have the government dictate how they can and should live their life? Should we be able to choose our own religion and abide by it, so long as our actions do no harm to others, or should the government dictate what religious beliefs are ok?

It's clear as day to me.

 

[Koya]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

Just about every gay person I know wants to be married, wants to call it marriage, recognizes that it is marriage. If it's the same darn rights, why call it something different? Unfortunately, nomenclature does mean something.

So, to your point, it means a heck of a lot to people who are gay that they are entitled to the same rights of marriage, name and all, as the rest of us.

 

[Koya]

With the stupid (read: assinine) pet comparisons, I can't but see boots now in a far worse light. I'm tired of dealing with people who are either meanspirited, don't care, bigoted, selfish and unwilling to recognize that they do harm to others by simply trying to stand in the way of equality and rights, and worse yet, then comparing two people (usually in love) getting married as a right to something to do with animals.

It's sickening, but it also let's us know the pathetic nature of your character, and I'm tired of pulling punches with such an overt expression that is, truthfully, sad, disheartening an disgusting.

Thankfully we are at a time where holding the thoughts that boots does will bring far more condemnation and shame than two people merely looking to have the same rights as others - and rightfully so. I recall a few years ago saying that those who looked to take such a tact would be looked upon harshly by history. Those like boots are not looked upon harshly by the present. It's hard to respect much of what comes from someone who spouts such virulent, misguided and harmful statements.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well yeah, that too. I figure he could probably come up with some non-human that somehow could express consent or something, so I figured head it off at the pass and explain how silly it is and also why it's offensive.

A child can "express" consent, but it isn't legally recognizable because it doesn't have the essential elements of legal consent. No non-human animal is going to qualify.

 

[Henry Ford]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

I know a huge number of people who demand their relationship be called a marriage.

 

[The Commish]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

Just about every gay person I know wants to be married, wants to call it marriage, recognizes that it is marriage. If it's the same darn rights, why call it something different? Unfortunately, nomenclature does mean something.

So, to your point, it means a heck of a lot to people who are gay that they are entitled to the same rights of marriage, name and all, as the rest of us.

It's always interesting to hear the personal experiences that we have and how they differ. It's been the exact opposite for me. They don't care what it's called as long as the rights are equal. That includes our resident lesbians here in the FFA. You're in the NE, right? For some reason I thought you were.

 

[timschochet]

Commish, I think you must be living on another planet. There is not a single gay person I have ever met who would be content with all the rights of marriage but without the title. These are NOT exceptions. They want the title of marriage because anything less would make them second class citizens.

 

[boots11234]

With the stupid (read: assinine) pet comparisons, I can't but see boots now in a far worse light. I'm tired of dealing with people who are either meanspirited, don't care, bigoted, selfish and unwilling to recognize that they do harm to others by simply trying to stand in the way of equality and rights, and worse yet, then comparing two people (usually in love) getting married as a right to something to do with animals.

It's sickening, but it also let's us know the pathetic nature of your character, and I'm tired of pulling punches with such an overt expression that is, truthfully, sad, disheartening an disgusting.

Thankfully we are at a time where holding the thoughts that boots does will bring far more condemnation and shame than two people merely looking to have the same rights as others - and rightfully so. I recall a few years ago saying that those who looked to take such a tact would be looked upon harshly by history. Those like boots are not looked upon harshly by the present. It's hard to respect much of what comes from someone who spouts such virulent, misguided and harmful statements.

I haven't said I'm either for or against in this thread. Just trying to get a better understanding. Regarding Tim's post, he proves my point, if your group is big enough you get the rights. Poligimests should be allowed to marry multiple people if laws are intended to not discriminate. Or marry a family member. Mock me if you wish but I guess I've yet to see a convincing argument against this. If you are for gay marriage how can you be against this?

Also if the only criteria I've heard some mention is love, then my dog point is valid. Crude but valid.

 

[jon_mx]

Commish, I think you must be living on another planet. There is not a single gay person I have ever met who would be content with all the rights of marriage but without the title. These are NOT exceptions. They want the title of marriage because anything less would make them second class citizens.

Nice to see you continue your crusade against anecdotal evidence.

 

[Koya]

With the stupid (read: assinine) pet comparisons, I can't but see boots now in a far worse light. I'm tired of dealing with people who are either meanspirited, don't care, bigoted, selfish and unwilling to recognize that they do harm to others by simply trying to stand in the way of equality and rights, and worse yet, then comparing two people (usually in love) getting married as a right to something to do with animals.

It's sickening, but it also let's us know the pathetic nature of your character, and I'm tired of pulling punches with such an overt expression that is, truthfully, sad, disheartening an disgusting.

Thankfully we are at a time where holding the thoughts that boots does will bring far more condemnation and shame than two people merely looking to have the same rights as others - and rightfully so. I recall a few years ago saying that those who looked to take such a tact would be looked upon harshly by history. Those like boots are not looked upon harshly by the present. It's hard to respect much of what comes from someone who spouts such virulent, misguided and harmful statements.

I haven't said I'm either for or against in this thread. Just trying to get a better understanding. Regarding Tim's post, he proves my point, if your group is big enough you get the rights. Poligimests should be allowed to marry multiple people if laws are intended to not discriminate. Or marry a family member. Mock me if you wish but I guess I've yet to see a convincing argument against this. If you are for gay marriage how can you be against this?

Also if the only criteria I've heard some mention is love, then my dog point is valid. Crude but valid.

1. Stop with the "dog points" - it's utterly false on so many levels, and you can not decide which aspects of a relationship make a comparison when so many others don't. Dog's are not ####### human, they can not consent legally. The more you push that stupid mode of thought, the more I will call you out, and deservedly so. It's not only disingenuous, but feeds into a long history of people that feel gay's are "lesser" people not worthy of full rights like the rest of us.

2. Rights and freedoms are rights and freedoms. Equality is equality. Regardless if your group is 1 or 1 billion. I have flat out said that if consenting adults wish to have a polygamous marriage, the law should find a way to provide that... which brings me back to the fact that there should be no "legal" recognition of marriage at all. Taxes should be the same whether you are single or married, married to one person or three, or whatever.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

With the stupid (read: assinine) pet comparisons, I can't but see boots now in a far worse light. I'm tired of dealing with people who are either meanspirited, don't care, bigoted, selfish and unwilling to recognize that they do harm to others by simply trying to stand in the way of equality and rights, and worse yet, then comparing two people (usually in love) getting married as a right to something to do with animals.

It's sickening, but it also let's us know the pathetic nature of your character, and I'm tired of pulling punches with such an overt expression that is, truthfully, sad, disheartening an disgusting.

Thankfully we are at a time where holding the thoughts that boots does will bring far more condemnation and shame than two people merely looking to have the same rights as others - and rightfully so. I recall a few years ago saying that those who looked to take such a tact would be looked upon harshly by history. Those like boots are not looked upon harshly by the present. It's hard to respect much of what comes from someone who spouts such virulent, misguided and harmful statements.

I haven't said I'm either for or against in this thread. Just trying to get a better understanding. Regarding Tim's post, he proves my point, if your group is big enough you get the rights. Poligimests should be allowed to marry multiple people if laws are intended to not discriminate. Or marry a family member. Mock me if you wish but I guess I've yet to see a convincing argument against this. If you are for gay marriage how can you be against this?

Also if the only criteria I've heard some mention is love, then my dog point is valid. Crude but valid.

So, you mustn't have spent more than 5 minutes on the topic if you have heard a convincing argument against your ridiculous statements.

 

[The Commish]

Commish, I think you must be living on another planet. There is not a single gay person I have ever met who would be content with all the rights of marriage but without the title. These are NOT exceptions. They want the title of marriage because anything less would make them second class citizens.

I live in the southeast and the most exposure I have had to gay couples was in the Cincinnati, Ohio area Though we have a few gay couples as friends here. Not nearly as many "out" here as up there. There have been a couple threads here where our resident lesbians have agreed with that exact same sentiment as well. I guess they could be lying, but I don't know what they'd get out of doing so.

 

[Koya]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

Just about every gay person I know wants to be married, wants to call it marriage, recognizes that it is marriage. If it's the same darn rights, why call it something different? Unfortunately, nomenclature does mean something.

So, to your point, it means a heck of a lot to people who are gay that they are entitled to the same rights of marriage, name and all, as the rest of us.

It's always interesting to hear the personal experiences that we have and how they differ. It's been the exact opposite for me. They don't care what it's called as long as the rights are equal. That includes our resident lesbians here in the FFA. You're in the NE, right? For some reason I thought you were.

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

 

[Henry Ford]

With the stupid (read: assinine) pet comparisons, I can't but see boots now in a far worse light. I'm tired of dealing with people who are either meanspirited, don't care, bigoted, selfish and unwilling to recognize that they do harm to others by simply trying to stand in the way of equality and rights, and worse yet, then comparing two people (usually in love) getting married as a right to something to do with animals.

It's sickening, but it also let's us know the pathetic nature of your character, and I'm tired of pulling punches with such an overt expression that is, truthfully, sad, disheartening an disgusting.

Thankfully we are at a time where holding the thoughts that boots does will bring far more condemnation and shame than two people merely looking to have the same rights as others - and rightfully so. I recall a few years ago saying that those who looked to take such a tact would be looked upon harshly by history. Those like boots are not looked upon harshly by the present. It's hard to respect much of what comes from someone who spouts such virulent, misguided and harmful statements.

I haven't said I'm either for or against in this thread. Just trying to get a better understanding. Regarding Tim's post, he proves my point, if your group is big enough you get the rights. Poligimests should be allowed to marry multiple people if laws are intended to not discriminate. Or marry a family member. Mock me if you wish but I guess I've yet to see a convincing argument against this. If you are for gay marriage how can you be against this?

Also if the only criteria I've heard some mention is love, then my dog point is valid. Crude but valid.

If the only criteria you've heard is love, you're not paying attention.

And, as many people in this thread have mentioned, polygamy is not as morally controversial as it is a logistical nightmare in terms of death benefits, retirement benefits, tax codes, etc.

 

[The Commish]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

Just about every gay person I know wants to be married, wants to call it marriage, recognizes that it is marriage. If it's the same darn rights, why call it something different? Unfortunately, nomenclature does mean something.

So, to your point, it means a heck of a lot to people who are gay that they are entitled to the same rights of marriage, name and all, as the rest of us.

It's always interesting to hear the personal experiences that we have and how they differ. It's been the exact opposite for me. They don't care what it's called as long as the rights are equal. That includes our resident lesbians here in the FFA. You're in the NE, right? For some reason I thought you were.

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

 

[butcher boy]

If it's really all about love, then all I really need in life is to strap a rubber ###### onto my Xbox and marry it.

 

[Henry Ford]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

Just about every gay person I know wants to be married, wants to call it marriage, recognizes that it is marriage. If it's the same darn rights, why call it something different? Unfortunately, nomenclature does mean something.

So, to your point, it means a heck of a lot to people who are gay that they are entitled to the same rights of marriage, name and all, as the rest of us.

It's always interesting to hear the personal experiences that we have and how they differ. It's been the exact opposite for me. They don't care what it's called as long as the rights are equal. That includes our resident lesbians here in the FFA. You're in the NE, right? For some reason I thought you were.

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

 

[squistion]

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

That doesn't make sense to me either.

 

[Henry Ford]

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

That doesn't make sense to me either.

Well, that part makes sense to me - the part about wanting it to be called marriage. The apparent confusion between Commish's two statements doesn't.

 

[squistion]

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

That doesn't make sense to me either.

Well, that part makes sense to me - the part about wanting it to be called marriage. The apparent confusion between Commish's two statements doesn't.

He makes it sound like "gay marriage" is printed on the license. What difference would it make to anyone as to what some people verbally refer to it as? It is like objecting to the term "inter-racial marriage" which would be as irrelevant as to the rights granted.

 

[Henry Ford]

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

That doesn't make sense to me either.

Well, that part makes sense to me - the part about wanting it to be called marriage. The apparent confusion between Commish's two statements doesn't.

He makes it sound like "gay marriage" is printed on the license. What difference would it make to anyone as to what some people verbally refer to it as? It is like objecting to the term "inter-racial marriage" which would be as irrelevant as to the rights granted.

Oh, gotcha. I assume he meant in casual conversation.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If I'm being honest, I don't think I've ever run into anyone who demands their relationship be called "marriage". All they are interested in are the rights hanging off the chosen term. If the gov't had originally gone the "civil union" route, hung the rights off that term, then limited the people covered by said term, they'd want to be included under the term "civil union". Yes, there are a few who care that the gov't calls their relationship "marriage". There are always exceptions.

The whole Prop 8 brouhaha in California was about the term "marriage." Gay couples already had the same substantive rights (community property, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) as straight couples under California's domestic partnership laws. But some gay people sued because the term "domestic partnership" is pretty lame compared to "marriage," and the courts agreed with them. So then some people introduced a proposition to amend the California constitution, forcing gays to go back to "domestic partnerships" instead of "marriages." The proposition passed, and there was another big legal to-do over it. The proposition was ultimately found to violate the federal constitution, so now we again have "marriages" instead of "domestic partnerships."

The whole thing was a really big deal, not just in California, but nationally. And it was all about the name.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

He makes it sound like "gay marriage" is printed on the license. What difference would it make to anyone as to what some people verbally refer to it as? It is like objecting to the term "inter-racial marriage" which would be as irrelevant as to the rights granted.

If there were two separate marital statutes in some state -- one for same-race couples and one for interracial couples -- it would be a big deal, even if the substantive benefits conferred were the same.

 

[The Commish]

Pretty simple...you call it two different things (marriage and gay marriage) there's room for them to be two different things. I'm pretty sure that's what the whole California fiasco was over, but I could be wrong.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Pretty simple...you call it two different things (marriage and gay marriage) there's room for them to be two different things. I'm pretty sure that's what the whole California fiasco was over, but I could be wrong.

This is just a case of crossed wires- you didn't phrase your previous post clearly, it made it sound like you thought gays were only concerned with the rights and the rights alone, and thus not the name. That's obviously not true as your subsequent posts reveal.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I am in New York. Have gay friends here, in Cali, in Texas, Fla and I could continue.

The name means a lot. Perhaps not as much as all of the other rights, but equal is equal and the name means a lot, because it has a connotation. Regardless, I see no valid argument to deny someone else use of the word marriage - it's not like having a gay coupled get married has any effect on your marriage, none at all.

It has nothing to do with me or my marriage. You're barking up the wrong tree there. One set of friends is vehemently opposed to the term "gay marriage". They want it to be "marriage" or nothing at all for the reasons you list. Calling them differently isn't equality in their minds and I completely understand that.

That doesn't make sense to me either.

Well, that part makes sense to me - the part about wanting it to be called marriage. The apparent confusion between Commish's two statements doesn't.

He makes it sound like "gay marriage" is printed on the license. What difference would it make to anyone as to what some people verbally refer to it as? It is like objecting to the term "inter-racial marriage" which would be as irrelevant as to the rights granted.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the entire point of the argument.

 

[squistion]

He makes it sound like "gay marriage" is printed on the license. What difference would it make to anyone as to what some people verbally refer to it as? It is like objecting to the term "inter-racial marriage" which would be as irrelevant as to the rights granted.

If there were two separate marital statutes in some state -- one for same-race couples and one for interracial couples -- it would be a big deal, even if the substantive benefits conferred were the same.

I am not arguing with you. But there was never two separate martial statutes in any state for inter-racial and same-race couples, nor was it ever proposed. And I am sure that inter-racial couples would not have been satisfied with a "separate but equal" classification. My point was, unless there a statutory difference in the law, no one (I am aware of) cares what some people verbally refer to the marriage as.

 

[Henry Ford]

He makes it sound like "gay marriage" is printed on the license. What difference would it make to anyone as to what some people verbally refer to it as? It is like objecting to the term "inter-racial marriage" which would be as irrelevant as to the rights granted.

If there were two separate marital statutes in some state -- one for same-race couples and one for interracial couples -- it would be a big deal, even if the substantive benefits conferred were the same.

I am not arguing with you. But there was never two separate martial statutes in any state for inter-racial and same-race couples, nor was it ever proposed. And I am sure that inter-racial couples would not have been satisfied with a "separate but equal" classification. My point was, unless there a statutory difference in the law, no one (I am aware of) cares what some people verbally refer to the marriage as.

A lot of religious straight people care if it's called marriage. A lot of gay and gay-ally people care if it's not allowed to be called marriage.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Over 1000 posts. How many people changed their mind?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A few of the courts have raised the issue of polygamy, since unlike the animal question, polygamy could involve consenting adults. How would you guys answer that question? My answer has always been that there are millions of gay people seeking to wed, while polygamy remains a very rare thing. Yet philosophically that never seemed satisfactory to me.

If people want to litigate polygamy, they can litigate polygamy, but it's a separate issue.

Under Equal Protection or Due Process analysis, the question is not whether a law is discriminatory. (All laws are.) The question is whether the discrimination is justified by a suitably good reason.

The reason given by opponents of gay marriage are along the lines of "OMG PEOPLE WILL MARRY THEIR DOGS!!!"

I suspect that people who oppose polygamy will have entirely different arguments supporting their position. Some of the arguments will involve the complexities involving the joint-filing of federal income tax returns, the structure of family partnerships, inheritance questions, estate- and gift-tax exemptions, conservatorship issues, Social Security and disability benefits for spouses, etc., etc.

There are also distributional arguments regarding the allocation of spouses: for every dude who has three wives, there are two other fellows who must remain single (or turn gay). There may be some arguments rooted in social science showing that it kind of sucks for a society to have a large population of involuntarily lonely men.

In any case, whatever the arguments would be, they'd be entirely separate from the dog argument. There's no slippery slope here.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Over 1000 posts. How many people changed their mind?

A ton of people have changed their mind on this issue in recent years based on conversations like this one repeated around dinner tables and water coolers and message boards and so on. Link IIRC there have been a number of message board posters who have changed their mind on this issue recently.

If your point was that this is all pointless back and forth garbage that doesn't really make a difference you couldn't possibly have picked a worse issue to make it on.

 

[The Commish]

Pretty simple...you call it two different things (marriage and gay marriage) there's room for them to be two different things. I'm pretty sure that's what the whole California fiasco was over, but I could be wrong.

This is just a case of crossed wires- you didn't phrase your previous post clearly, it made it sound like you thought gays were only concerned with the rights and the rights alone, and thus not the name. That's obviously not true as your subsequent posts reveal.

It's not what I think...it's what they tell me. I obviously know it's important to some. There's one couple out of the folks I know that has a position slightly different than the others, which I didn't do a good job at explaining That difference is, if they insist on calling it anything it should be "marriage" (since that is what the gov't calls it today) with no other qualification because calling it two different things allows for them to be potentially treated differently over time. As an example, this particular couple doesn't like the fact that there is a different category for them on their health insurance outside of "spouse". Should the federal government label them differently for tax purposes, they'd not approve of that either. The other couples don't really "care" as long as the rights stay the same across labels nor are they insistent on the label being "married" or "marriage". Hopefully that's more clear...sorry for the confusion.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Pretty simple...you call it two different things (marriage and gay marriage) there's room for them to be two different things. I'm pretty sure that's what the whole California fiasco was over, but I could be wrong.

This is just a case of crossed wires- you didn't phrase your previous post clearly, it made it sound like you thought gays were only concerned with the rights and the rights alone, and thus not the name. That's obviously not true as your subsequent posts reveal.

It's not what I think...it's what they tell me. I obviously know it's important to some. There's one couple out of the folks I know that has a position slightly different than the others, which I didn't do a good job at explaining That difference is, if they insist on calling it anything it should be "marriage" with no other qualification because calling it two different things allows for them to be potentially treated differently over time. As an example, this particular couple doesn't like the fact that there is a different category for them on their health insurance outside of "spouse". Should the federal government label them differently for tax purposes, they'd not approve of that either. The other couples don't really "care" as long as the rights stay the same across labels nor are they insistent on the label being "married" or "marriage". Hopefully that's more clear...sorry for the confusion.

Yeah that clears it up. Basically, the position your friends take in the bolded is highly unusual in my experience and I think in pretty much everyone else's experience too. Most everyone insist that that name is also important, and for good reason. We don't exactly have a strong track record when it comes to "separate but equal" treatment under law in this country.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Over 1000 posts. How many people changed their mind?

A ton of people have changed their mind on this issue in recent years based on conversations like this one repeated around dinner tables and water coolers and message boards and so on. Link IIRC there have been a number of message board posters who have changed their mind on this issue recently.

If your point was that this is all pointless back and forth garbage that doesn't really make a difference you couldn't possibly have picked a worse issue to make it on.

I was just asking because I didn't want to read 1200 posts to catch up.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

My point was, unless there a statutory difference in the law, no one (I am aware of) cares what some people verbally refer to the marriage as.

You mean if the law used the term "marriage" for all marriages, but some people privately used the term "civil union" for same-sex marriages while using the term "marriage" for opposite-sex marriages, nobody would care?

Or do you mean that if the law used the term "marriage" for opposite-sex unions but "civil unions" for same-sex unions, nobody would care as long as the substantive legal benefits were identical?

If the former, maybe. That would be kind of weird, and I'm having a hard time imagining it.

If the latter, California is strong evidence to the contrary.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Over 1000 posts. How many people changed their mind?

A ton of people have changed their mind on this issue in recent years based on conversations like this one repeated around dinner tables and water coolers and message boards and so on. Link IIRC there have been a number of message board posters who have changed their mind on this issue recently.

If your point was that this is all pointless back and forth garbage that doesn't really make a difference you couldn't possibly have picked a worse issue to make it on.

I was just asking because I didn't want to read 1200 posts to catch up.

Ah. Beats me I know some regular posters around here have changed their minds on this one recently- MOP comes to mind. No idea is that was here or elsewhere. We've had a lot of gay marriage threads around these parts.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I posted this in 2012 on another site. Still works for me:

Yeah, I know we have a specific political thread, but whatever. This year, Mn has 2 issues on the ballot, both of which the Democrats oppose. They are an amendment to the constitution that effectively bans gay marriage and a requirement that you have to provide ID in order to vote.

The second issue is a no brainier to me. Trying to sell this as disenfranchising voters is BS. You want to vote, prove that you are who you say you are...pretty cut and dry to me.

The gay marriage issue is a bit more complex. I read yesterday that the Catholic church has spend $1.2M on opposing gay marriage. Now, admittedly, I don't give 10% of my income to the church as the bible mentions (although, I don't think that's what it says exactly, but I digress). I do however, pay about 11K a year total for my 3 kids to attend a Catholic school (this is after about $2200 in financial aid). For the record, this 11K is very hard for my family to come by. As a result, I drive a POS 1997 Chrysler Concorde that was given to me. Luckily, my dad also gave us a 2005 Expedition, which is very nice and we are blessed that he was able to do that. On top of that, we really need new floors in our living room and a new shower that we can't afford. I fully understand that these are choices my wife and I made and I feel that the education the kids are getting is better than it would be at my local public school. Quite frankly, the private school doesn't have to put up with the BS that little Billy brings to class, so the disruptions are minimal at best. On top of that, all 3 of our kids have less than 20 students, which is awesome. I just provided this to give a background on my affiliation with the church.

Onto the gay issue. If I am being fully honest, the thought of homosexuals sickens me. One will never convince me that this is natural and OK. In reality, I wish they didn't exist. It irritates me when people go out of their way to let everyone know they are gay. I'll never understand how, as a man you talk one way today, then tomorrow when you come out of the closet, your voice changes and everything is whimsical. Stereotype? Maybe, but we've all seen it.

Anyways, back to the issue. I find it appalling that "Christians" would not only spend $1.2M (although, in reality, it isn't up to them how the church spends the money, but I understand they don’t have to donate it) but go out of their way to exclude a group. I don't think Jesus would care to much for these kinds of actions. Furthermore, if living in sin is to be dealt with, I'll personally let God deal with it. While I am indeed "my brother's keeper", I am not, "my brother's authority". Christians have a very visible pattern of picking and choosing what is wrong in the eyes of God. Is homosexuality a sin? Of course it is. Just as living with your girlfriend or having sex before being married is. Who are we, as mere mortals, to judge which sin is worse? When God lines up my sins on judgment day, he will no doubt have a long list. That list however, will not include treating another human being as a second class citizen. It may be against what my church believes, but I don’t think it goes against what my God believes. As the debate rages in my head, my God beats my church, each and every time.

 

[squistion]

My point was, unless there a statutory difference in the law, no one (I am aware of) cares what some people verbally refer to the marriage as.

You mean if the law used the term "marriage" for all marriages, but some people privately used the term "civil union" for same-sex marriages while using the term "marriage" for opposite-sex marriages, nobody would care?

Or do you mean that if the law used the term "marriage" for opposite-sex unions but "civil unions" for same-sex unions, nobody would care?

If the former, maybe. That would be kind of weird, and I'm having a hard time imagining it.

If the latter, California is strong evidence to the contrary.

I should have said "their marriage as" meaning the couples themselves (yes religious people, etc would still have objections)

I was not referring to a law or statute that makes a separate but equal classification. Inter-racial couples probably would not have been satisfied with a civil union designation prior to Loving, but I find no evidence of outrage that some people used the term privately after that. And I am not aware of objections by gays (outside of anecdotes here) that have a problem with a marriage under a state statute, that is legally a marriage, being referred to by some people privately as a gay marriage.

 

[Henry Ford]

I posted this in 2012 on another site. Still works for me:

Yeah, I know we have a specific political thread, but whatever. This year, Mn has 2 issues on the ballot, both of which the Democrats oppose. They are an amendment to the constitution that effectively bans gay marriage and a requirement that you have to provide ID in order to vote.

The second issue is a no brainier to me. Trying to sell this as disenfranchising voters is BS. You want to vote, prove that you are who you say you are...pretty cut and dry to me.

The gay marriage issue is a bit more complex. I read yesterday that the Catholic church has spend $1.2M on opposing gay marriage. Now, admittedly, I don't give 10% of my income to the church as the bible mentions (although, I don't think that's what it says exactly, but I digress). I do however, pay about 11K a year total for my 3 kids to attend a Catholic school (this is after about $2200 in financial aid). For the record, this 11K is very hard for my family to come by. As a result, I drive a POS 1997 Chrysler Concorde that was given to me. Luckily, my dad also gave us a 2005 Expedition, which is very nice and we are blessed that he was able to do that. On top of that, we really need new floors in our living room and a new shower that we can't afford. I fully understand that these are choices my wife and I made and I feel that the education the kids are getting is better than it would be at my local public school. Quite frankly, the private school doesn't have to put up with the BS that little Billy brings to class, so the disruptions are minimal at best. On top of that, all 3 of our kids have less than 20 students, which is awesome. I just provided this to give a background on my affiliation with the church.

Onto the gay issue. If I am being fully honest, the thought of homosexuals sickens me. One will never convince me that this is natural and OK. In reality, I wish they didn't exist. It irritates me when people go out of their way to let everyone know they are gay. I'll never understand how, as a man you talk one way today, then tomorrow when you come out of the closet, your voice changes and everything is whimsical. Stereotype? Maybe, but we've all seen it.

Anyways, back to the issue. I find it appalling that "Christians" would not only spend $1.2M (although, in reality, it isn't up to them how the church spends the money, but I understand they don’t have to donate it) but go out of their way to exclude a group. I don't think Jesus would care to much for these kinds of actions. Furthermore, if living in sin is to be dealt with, I'll personally let God deal with it. While I am indeed "my brother's keeper", I am not, "my brother's authority". Christians have a very visible pattern of picking and choosing what is wrong in the eyes of God. Is homosexuality a sin? Of course it is. Just as living with your girlfriend or having sex before being married is. Who are we, as mere mortals, to judge which sin is worse? When God lines up my sins on judgment day, he will no doubt have a long list. That list however, will not include treating another human being as a second class citizen. It may be against what my church believes, but I don’t think it goes against what my God believes. As the debate rages in my head, my God beats my church, each and every time.

You posted this two years ago and still feel the same way?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And I am not aware of objections by gays (outside of anecdotes here) that have a problem with a marriage under a state statute, that is legally a marriage, being referred to by some people privately as a gay marriage.

Oh, yeah, me neither.

 

[TheIronSheik]

Why is it that gay people can get a civil union, but us straight folk can't?!