NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you kidding? A logical argument about this subject that defends the status quo doesn't exist.

But.....but......you mean there is no logical way to defend bigotry?

*Stamps feet*

WHY NOT!?!?!?!

Not quite so simple. My gut feeling, upbringing, cultural preprogramming, and everything else that affects my opinions, convince me that the sight of people getting gay in public sickens me. Privately they can do whatever they want, even get married as far as I care. The problem for me is that whatever gives gays more social status, increases the amount of gays I'm forced to see making out in parks, walking hand in hand in the malls and that sort of things.

This is a case where I care about my personal wellbeing more than fairness. Like I said earlier, it's entirely subjective.

Apparently not just the sight of being 'getting gay' but the sight of crosscultural or crossracial relationships as well. That appears to me to be your problem, not mine. The thought of people openly supporting racism and sexism sickens me, but I'm not willing to make it illegal to have the opinions you do. And you should thank God we don't since the majority of people in this country disagree with your views on both race and your treatment of gays.

I always find this argument to be particularly uninformed. Barring the evolution fallacy, "legal marriage structure" is a concept unique to man in that it is "legal." In every other animal society, it is the union of a male and a female of species that creates offspring (procreation), and there is no example of purposeful and exclusive homosexuality outside of humanity. So a male-female union (marriage) is thus designed for procreation, and any other definition is a bastardization of the word and an acute display of ignorance with regard to natural orders, that is, habits and behaviors of and belonging to nature as whole.
How amusing and ironic? There are many examples of purposeful and exclusive homosexuality outside of humanit and I have seen them presented to you repeatedly. You find the argument uninformed because you ignore the preponderence of evidence. However, anyone not ignoring the evidence is giggling right now.

Personally, I don't get all the hang-up over the name. If a "civil union" were formed that had all the things now ascribed to civil marriage, how would it be different? How does changing the name somehow make it more or less religious?

Should we stop letting the police take signed "confessions" because confession is something you can only do by telling all your sins to a priest and having him give you penance and absolve you of them?

((not directed at you, UT, just as the sentiment in general))

Meanwhile, it is important to note that just changing the name to "civil union" rather than marriage would remove some of the rights associated with marriage. We currently have treaties with more than one country that involve recognizing marriages performed by those other countries, and having marriages performed in the US count in those other countries. Even if we passed a law that said, "Every time we refer to marriage in US law, we mean civil unions," or something of the like, the treaties could not be changed without renegotiation and consent of the country with which the treaty was signed. Thus, unless they signed a revision of sorts, they would be under no obligation to recognize "civil unions."

The name itself is not the issue … having the separate legislation and rule set for it is … when you can change one without effecting another it is always always abuse able

In the end were black schools equal to white schools? No having the separate facilities let outside forces separate the quality of education (from income in the area to staff to funding to distance).

In the end they should in one form or another be handled under the same rule set and have the same classification

Well, the GOOD news here is that you are aware of your prejudice, and so can be sure not to teach it to your kids.

Even if you can't find a way to get over it yourself, you can avoid passing it on, and that is something.

As the song from South Pacific goes "You've got to be taught to hate."


what if my son and/or daughter turns out to be gay?

Then you have an even stronger personal reason to find a way to overcome your parents' bigotry and to find a way to be a better person for it yourself.

Not that we don't all wish, for your sake and the sake of the rest of the world, that you might find a way even if your son or daughter turns out not to be gay.

It's not at all similar to the the anti-miscegenation laws being repealed, nor are the arguments the same. If we are looking for an analogy for the anti-miscegenation laws, we could use professional baseball as an accurate and timely example.

There were two different leagues at one time, with all whites in one league and all African Americans in the other. And the best players from both leagues never faced off against each other and weren't able to play in the same stadiums against each other, and baseball was not all that it could be for the fans, who had to watch two leagues to see all the best players. Finally, one day, all that ended and all the baseball players from both leagues were able to play in the best fields on the best teams against the best players, regardless of color or creed of the player, and the league was improved, and the fans were rewarded by combining the two leagues of baseball players into one league featuring the best of both worlds.

That was what the anti-miscegenation laws in marriage were like.

But now, today, the examples those people were talking about, same-sex marriage, is NOT like the baseball leagues before, they play a different type of ball game. In fact, they aren't even playing with baseballs at all, they're playing soccer and they want the baseball community to accept them into the MLB association as one of their own and change all their rules to accommodate them as well. But if the MLB association does that, and changes all the rules to allow both soccer teams and baseball teams in the same league the entire system as we know it fails to exist anymore, they won’t even be playing baseball anymore. Then, if we do force the MLB groups to accept soccer teams what will we do about the football teams next (polygamist) and the basketball players (bestiality) and the bowling teams (whatever it they might represent) that want to be allowed in the major league baseball association next?

Hell, we won't even have any baseball teams in the league anymore if this keeps up.

THATS the analogy they are trying to convey. The anti-miscegenation analogy you used is not applicable to this situation anymore because the new teams aren't playing the same game like they were during the miscegenation era...


Utterly false.

"[Blacks and Whites] DO have equal rights, they can all marry people of the [same race]." Thrown out because laws cannot limit what we can and cannot do based on race.

"[Men and women] DO have equal rights, they can all marry people of the [opposite sex]." Should be thrown out because laws cannot limit what a person can and cannot do based on sex.

The courts struck down laws banning interracial marriage because marriage is an individual right. That means which race I am cannot affect which pool of people I may select my spouse from or it violates the fourteenth amendment's requirement that we all be subject to equal rights.

How is which sex I am affecting which pool of people I may select from not exactly comparable? One is discrimination based on race and the other is discrimination based on sex. It's very simple.

Now you can claim that the ballgame is different, but they are offering to play the same game, a intersocial relationship, with the same exact rules and everything, everything being equal in terms of their interaction with the law and the contract. If you can show which 'special' rules they want to have which would make it equivalent to another sport or which 'special' interaction they want to have which would make it equivelent to another sport, please do. I suspect you cannot.

Keep in mind that in a homosexual relationship the only thing that MAY be different is the sex and SCOTUS has already ruled that we have no business legislating sex.

You should read some more divorce rulings, the kind with children involved. Most judges rule in favor of what's best for the children during a divorce (as well they should), damn what the adults wanted or agreed to as far as agreements about property go... Your analyses reveals a lack of up-to-date knowledge of that field.

Yes, they are very similar to rulings regarding children where no marriage was involved. Marriage doesn't change your responsibility to children at all. It doesn't change your rights regarding the child, either. The only thing it changes is that a man is assumed to be the father in marriage and it must be proven outside of marriage. Otherwise the existence of children is what drives the issue when talking about two people who are not together, not the divorce or the marriage. It has little or nothing to do with marriage law.

The name itself is not the issue … having the separate legislation and rule set for it is … when you can change one without effecting another it is always always abuse able

In the end were black schools equal to white schools? No having the separate facilities let outside forces separate the quality of education (from income in the area to staff to funding to distance).

In the end they should in one form or another be handled under the same rule set and have the same classification

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I just think the hang-up over a name is funny. I don't understand this whole, "Marriage is religious, but civil union is not," mentality. Obviously, if this were true, then only civil unions could be offered by government, as a government religion cannot be instituted.

The point was that there is no logical reason to oppose the government using the word marriage to refer to something that is not at all religious, any more than there is a problem with the word "confession" having a different meaning in a legal setting than in a religious one.

"[Blacks and Whites] DO have equal rights, they can all marry people of the [same race]." Thrown out because laws cannot limit what we can and cannot do based on race.

"[Men and women] DO have equal rights, they can all marry people of the [opposite sex]." Should be thrown out because what a person can do based on race.

Substitute "sex" for "race" in the latter. =)


Yes, they are very similar to rulings regarding children where no marriage was involved. Marriage doesn't change your responsibility to children at all. It doesn't change your rights regarding the child, either. The only thing it changes is that a man is assumed to be the father in marriage and it must be proven outside of marriage. Otherwise the existence of children is what drives the issue when talking about two people who are not together, not the divorce or the marriage. It has little or nothing to do with marriage law.

I would add one more difference:

Only within the confines of marriage can a non-biological parent take on full parental responsibilities for a child along with a biological parent. If I have a child with one man (who perhaps does not want to take care of the child), and later marry someone who does want to raise that child with me, the only way they can take equal custody along with me is to marry me (and for the biological father to give up custody).

As it is, homosexual couples who are raising children are at a great disadvantage in taking care of those children. As it stands, only the person who is a biological parent has any legal standing whatsoever when it comes to that child. The other does not and can do nothing about it. As such, the child has a parent who cannot determine his/her medical treatment, cannot sign school papers, cannot extend health insurance to the child, and so forth.

While the contention that marriage is somehow meant solely to provide a safe environment for children is completely bogus, the fact that disallowing gay marriage does more harm to children than good is indisputable.

Children are involved in divorce proceeding because their parents were 'married' Children are not protected or their rights are not watched out for by the courts if the parents are NOT married and simply separate. IF that happens and one parent wants to force help from the other adult involved, they will have to seek the help of various government bodies and lawyers and courts to get what they need, again, the children are left out in the cold as one adult sues another adult.

The Marriage laws now protect the children as well as the adults. Marriage laws ARE about children. Simply try to end a marriage that has children involved to see suddenly that the children have protections because their parents were married and compare that to a child that had parents that were not married.

Marriage laws MUST be about children or else they loose their reason for invention in the first place.... The stuff you were talking about, property rights and division of property, THAT was the by-product of marriage laws involving children, not the vice-versa as you stated it. The protection of children's rights aspect of marriage laws was not the accidental by-product of marriage laws.

Ok, let's make that comparison, my friend. Begin presenting evidence. Keep in mind that divorce-like proceedings occur between people who were in a relationship and had children and then broke up regardless of whether they were legally married or even living together.

You've made a plethora of assertions but the bulk of marriage law does not support you. The law describes marriage as a legal contract making two people into one entity legally. It makes no mention of children. At all. The burden of proof is on you.

Meanwhile here's a list of some of the rights and privileges associated with entering into the marriage contract - notice children aren't necessary to benefit from these privileges -
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Gotten from a religious tolerance site.

Now, notice that while next-of-kin can involve children as can domestic violence protection, sick leave to care for a member of your family, wrongful death, etc., that the protections for the PARTNER are the only ones that don't exist in the case where marriage is not present. Don't tell me that children don't have the same rights and protections absent of marriage. It's not true and you've not supplied any evidence to suggest that it is.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I just think the hang-up over a name is funny. I don't understand this whole, "Marriage is religious, but civil union is not," mentality. Obviously, if this were true, then only civil unions could be offered by government, as a government religion cannot be instituted.

The point was that there is no logical reason to oppose the government using the word marriage to refer to something that is not at all religious, any more than there is a problem with the word "confession" having a different meaning in a legal setting than in a religious one.



Substitute "sex" for "race" in the latter. =)



I would add one more difference:

Only within the confines of marriage can a non-biological parent take on full parental responsibilities for a child along with a biological parent. If I have a child with one man (who perhaps does not want to take care of the child), and later marry someone who does want to raise that child with me, the only way they can take equal custody along with me is to marry me (and for the biological father to give up custody).

As it is, homosexual couples who are raising children are at a great disadvantage in taking care of those children. As it stands, only the person who is a biological parent has any legal standing whatsoever when it comes to that child. The other does not and can do nothing about it. As such, the child has a parent who cannot determine his/her medical treatment, cannot sign school papers, cannot extend health insurance to the child, and so forth.

While the contention that marriage is somehow meant solely to provide a safe environment for children is completely bogus, the fact that disallowing gay marriage does more harm to children than good is indisputable.
In my brother's case it required my father to actually adopt him. Simply marrying my mother was not enough.

The problem you express is not just with marriage law, but adoption law as well. Now, Poot would have you believe they are the same thing, but as you know, marriage is not centered around children. We have separate laws protecting children for obvious reasons.

In my brother's case it required my father to actually adopt him. Simply marrying my mother was not enough.

Oh, it never is - I didn't mean to suggest that. However, unless your father was actually your brother's biological father (in which case no adoption or marriage would have been necessary for him to attain custody), he could not have adopted your brother (and shared responsibility with your mother) without marrying her.

The problem you express is not just with marriage law, but adoption law as well. Now, Poot would have you believe they are the same thing, but as you know, marriage is not centered around children. We have separate laws protecting children for obvious reasons.

Indeed, but the ability for a non-biological parent to share custody with a biological parent is possible if and only if those two people are married (and the second biological parent is deceased, unreachable, or has given up custody).

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I just think the hang-up over a name is funny. I don't understand this whole, "Marriage is religious, but civil union is not," mentality. Obviously, if this were true, then only civil unions could be offered by government, as a government religion cannot be instituted.

The point was that there is no logical reason to oppose the government using the word marriage to refer to something that is not at all religious, any more than there is a problem with the word "confession" having a different meaning in a legal setting than in a religious one.


snip

If the name was all that was different I would be probably fairly happy … I would probably still call myself married but at least the rights were there

But as long as there is a legalistic difference even if the effect is approximately the same I still have an issue with it

If the name was all that was different I would be probably fairly happy … I would probably still call myself married but at least the rights were there

But as long as there is a legalistic difference even if the effect is approximately the same I still have an issue with it

I still think we're talking around each other here.

I am absolutely and completely opposed to having two separate legal constructs (which is what two different names would mean) for homosexual couples vs. heterosexual couples. Separate but equal cannot and does not ever mean equal.

My point is simply that those who attempt to attach "marriage" to an automatic religious meaning and therefore think the government should instead have "civil unions" are simply being silly. It is the equivalent of disallowing government from using the word "confession", because "confession" can only mean telling your sins to a priest.

what are people against it? I mean honestly are they bothering you when they get married, and doesn't god accept everyone for who they are. It seems people just like to control people, to feel empowered, but honestly when gay people do marry does it bother you at all?

they just want to delude them selves that if they cant get married it wont happen. They tend to ignore fact that its going to happen married or not so why not just let em get married. Serriosly its not like the world is going to end just because we let some gay couple get married.

I still think we're talking around each other here.

I am absolutely and completely opposed to having two separate legal constructs (which is what two different names would mean) for homosexual couples vs. heterosexual couples. Separate but equal cannot and does not ever mean equal.

My point is simply that those who attempt to attach "marriage" to an automatic religious meaning and therefore think the government should instead have "civil unions" are simply being silly. It is the equivalent of disallowing government from using the word "confession", because "confession" can only mean telling your sins to a priest.
Our wish to go to civil unions is usualy steming from the wish of the religous to not alow a seperate "legalistic" deffinition of marrige to cover both same and oposite sex unions

I dont care what word they use as long as its the same

I think it is just as silly for the religous that say that the term marrige is only oposite sex couples

Why should we have two different terms for the same union with the same rights when there is no real need for it?

Our wish to go to civil unions is usualy steming from the wish of the religous to not alow a seperate "legalistic" deffinition of marrige to cover both same and oposite sex unions

That's exactly what I am saying I don't get!

Saying that we can't have a separate religious and legal definition of "marriage" is exactly like saying that we can't have a separate religious and legal definition of "confession" - it's ridiculous. And yet, people can't seem to understand that a word can actually refer to more than one thing.

I dont care what word they use as long as its the same

The problem, as I already pointed out, is that it is legally impossible to use the term "civil union" and still have all the same rights as those currently afforded to marriage - even if a "civil union" is all that is available. Because of our treaties with other countries specifically using the word "marriage", changing our own law to "civil union" would mean that those treaties are essentially useless, unless the other country chooses to sign off on ammending them.

That's exactly what I am saying I don't get!

Saying that we can't have a separate religious and legal definition of "marriage" is exactly like saying that we can't have a separate religious and legal definition of "confession" - it's ridiculous. And yet, people can't seem to understand that a word can actually refer to more than one thing.



The problem, as I already pointed out, is that it is legally impossible to use the term "civil union" and still have all the same rights as those currently afforded to marriage - even if a "civil union" is all that is available. Because of our treaties with other countries specifically using the word "marriage", changing our own law to "civil union" would mean that those treaties are essentially useless, unless the other country chooses to sign off on ammending them.

That I can understand ... personaly I am all for it being a legal "marrige" and a religous one for simplicity as you said with all the treaties and such

When I say "civil union" not marrage at leat most people that I know just mean have a compleatly seperate legal and religous entity ... untangle this mess we have currently with implied ties and such

On the whole "call it a civil union" front, I think that since the word marriage is so tied up in the legalities of the issue that the folks who are bothered by it should come up with another term for THEIR unions (say "church union"), one that applies only to religious marriage and has no bearing at all on any legal issues. Then they could still be members of their own exclusive club, and we wouldn't need to consider rewritting hundreds of years of laws. As always, if certain churches did not want to recognize homosexual church unions they could, but it would in no way impact the civil and legal rights of said married homosexuals.

The ending of a marriage shows what a marriage was.

Good then that would mean that the courts don't get involved if there are no children, yes? Oh, wait... that's not true. If divorce proceedings occur whether children are involved or not, then I suppose the purpose of marriage CANNOT be children by the most basic of logic.

Many divorce cases where there are children of the parents have no child custody hearing. Meanwhile, in most cases child custody hearings and divorce hearings are held separately.

If one were to follow your own argument that the ending of a marriage shows what a marriage was and divorce and child custody/support hearings are held separately, the obvious conclusion... (come on, I don't actually have to tell you, you lost, do I?)

On the whole "call it a civil union" front, I think that since the word marriage is so tied up in the legalities of the issue that the folks who are bothered by it should come up with another term for THEIR unions (say "church union"), one that applies only to religious marriage and has no bearing at all on any legal issues. Then they could still be members of their own exclusive club, and we wouldn't need to consider rewritting hundreds of years of laws. As always, if certain churches did not want to recognize homosexual church unions they could, but it would in no way impact the civil and legal rights of said married homosexuals.

Sounds good to me, LOL.

Or maybe people can just get over it and realize that a word can have more than one meaning in English? Even more than one similar meaning?

We allow it in Canada ... and God has yet to smite us.

Again, this is ignorance of the animal kingdom. Some animals do form family structures with animals of the same gender.

Lions are a lovely example. Female lions live together and rear their young together. Male lions periodically invade a pride, kill the babies, and impregnate the females, before soon being overthrown by a new male. Male lions seldom, if ever, contribute anything whatsoever to lion "families," and males who are with a pride of females often don't even hunt for their own food.


The family structure of animals or humans for that matter are hardly homogenous. Some family structures have homosexual couples raising orphaned offspring. Some family structures include all of the adults of a community with no real interest in who should be raising whom.

Sexual relationships meaning little to the raising of children. Loving relationships mean much and history and biology define loving relationships as MUCH more than a man and a woman.
The real fear that underlies all this homophobia is about gender. A lot of people deeply believe that male and female humans are pretty much different species, and that women alone (or men alone) cannot provide some crucial aspect of socialization to their children.

Of course, that socialization is pretty much the exact kind of socialization that a loving parent would want to protect their child FROM. It's the kind of socialization that imposes artificial gender roles and stupid stereotypes that force people to be things they don't want to be based on the genitals they happened to be born with.

It's probably true that two women rearing a boy together will not impart to him many of the traditionalist idiocies about "manliness." He will probably never be a "Real Man(tm)" as envisioned by social conservatives. And you know what? That's probably the best thing that could possibly happen to him.

they just want to delude them selves that if they cant get married it wont happen. They tend to ignore fact that its going to happen married or not so why not just let em get married. Serriosly its not like the world is going to end just because we let some gay couple get married.
Well, the panic right now is occuring because homophobes can see the change a'coming. They know that marriage equality will be achieved in the very near future. They know that they are a dying breed, and they probably are wrestling with the dawning realization that future generations will look on homophobia the way we currently look at racists. They know they're wrong, they know they're losing, and they're throwing as many tantrums as they can get away with. They want to get laws on the books while they still hold some power, despite the fact that any such laws will be struck down almost immediately.

I say we encourage them to continue with their futile efforts, so that they can really write themselves into the history books. I encourage homophobes to stand up for what they believe, and to make sure to use their full names and titles, so that future school children can know exactly who was behind all this silliness. It's in the name of education, folks! :)