Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: geronimotwo on August 20, 2011, 07:16:23 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.htm
citing his book "fed up, our fight to save america from washington", this article is claiming that perry would like to work towards the following changes in the constitution:
abolish lifetime terms of federal judges.
allow congress to overide the courts with a 2/3rds vote.
scrap federal income tax.
stop the direct election of senators..
require the balancing of the federal budget.
reqire marriage to be between a man and a woman.
make abortion illegal nationwide.
wwould anyone here be able to verify this?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.htm
citing his book "fed up, our fight to save america from washington", this article is claiming that perry would like to work towards the following changes in the constitution:
abolish lifetime terms of federal judges.
Possibly a good thing?
allow congress to overide the courts with a 2/3rds vote.
Congress is already able to tell SCOTUS it cannot touch a particular subject; I do not believe this power has ever actually been employed. This may be feasible.....
scrap federal income tax.
An amendment to the Constition was passed to permit the tax; it could be repealed the same way just as prohibition was. Here it depends on HOW Perry did it. He could use the presidential "bully pulpit" to argue for it, that would be fine.
stop the direct election of senators..
Another constitutional amendment issue as the above; personally I would be all for it, as the states lost an enormous amount of power inside washington when direct elections started. And DC has been bullying the states ever since.
require the balancing of the federal budget.
A GOOD thing!
reqire marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Nothing in the Constition prohibits this. While I tend to agree that marriage is between one man and one woman, I don't have a big dog in the fight, just an annoying little lap dog yapping at the wind blowing.
make abortion illegal nationwide.
Another possible thing that could be done. It would make half the country go ballistic; you'd have to convince many people that killing unborn babies is murder. I never understood the difficulty of this, but I don't pretend to understand the shifting vagaries of public sentiment.
wwould anyone here be able to verify this?
My reaction in red.
I can't really verify it but it doesn't sound outlandish that these would be on Perry's agenda, given what I've heard of his religious proclivities. :angel:
-
Mostly good ideas, but if they happen it won't be in the confines of the current America. Maybe in the next iteration.
-
He's already backpedaling from some parts of his book....
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/18/perry-is-less-fed-up-over-social-security/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/08/18/perry-is-less-fed-up-over-social-security/)
....I expect more backpedaling in the future.... =|
-
The next election will pit the socialist technocrats against the evangelical mystics. The man of reason has no place to hang his head.
-
i don't have a problem with the term limits, as long as we don't run out of good judges. =D three of them (the amendments) i could easily go along with. i'm not sure of the ramifications of allowing congress to overule the supreme court, or the idea of allowing my state government to elect my senators. my biggest problem with his "amendments" come with the last two (blocking gay marriage, and abortions), as i have always looked at the constitution as a set of rules to limit our government, not the people.
-
my biggest problem with his "amendments" come with the last two (blocking gay marriage, and abortions), as i have always looked at the constitution as a set of rules to limit our government, not the people.
Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.
-
>as i have always looked at the constitution as a set of rules to limit our government, not the people.<
DINGDINGDING! We have a winnah!
>Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.<
Actually, it would just be extending protections of certain rights to a group that doesn't currently enjoy such.
And before you saddle up your arguments, Fistful, keep in mind that almost every argument against such is based on a religious viewpoint, of a faith *I* and many others) don't follow...
Honestly though, I would much rather the Feds were taken out of the "marriage argument" altogether. Make the governmental permission slip (for ANY form of domestic partnership) a civil union, which is a cohabitation contract between any two or more consenting adults, and grants all the same protections as the current rules on "marriage"...
-
Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.
Which is why government should get out of the business of recognizing marriage at all.
-
And before you saddle up your arguments, Fistful, keep in mind that almost every argument against such is based on a religious viewpoint, of a faith *I* and many others) don't follow...
That's a myth, but even if it were true, I never use such arguments. Come to think of it, I don't need or have any arguments about this issue. Just refutations for whatever silly justifications folks come up with. Burden of proof is on the other side.
>Recognizing "gay marriage" is an action of the government.<
Actually, it would just be extending protections of certain rights to a group that doesn't currently enjoy such.
Honestly though, I would much rather the Feds were taken out of the "marriage argument" altogether. Make the governmental permission slip (for ANY form of domestic partnership) a civil union, which is a cohabitation contract between any two or more consenting adults, and grants all the same protections as the current rules on "marriage"...
You've contradicted yourself. Thanks. =)
Edit: Slight change in wording.
-
Which is why government should get out of the business of recognizing marriage at all.
The real trouble there comes in with the laws on child custody, child support, and (above all else) alimony payments. For instance, there would be great screaming from certain quarters if divorce from wealthy men (even if it's all the woman's fault) didn't come standard with a million-dollar severance package.
According to some, the declining interest in marriage in Europe and Canada has less to do with the acceptance of gay marriage and more to do with alimony and custody issues that have become ridiculously biased.
-
Maybe I didn't phrase that well enough.
From what I've seen, the argument lately really isn't about the protections provided for straight couples but denied gays. The argument has really been about the term "marriage". So remove the term from the table, leaving it in the hands of the clergy. For the secular issue, use civil unions (or whatever term you prefer).
You really can't argue that gays have the same rights as straights: too many cases of long-term gay couples having issues concerning inheritance and hospital visitation, to really say they have the same rights.
And going to head you off at the pass on another: yes, they COULD find a heterosexual partner. And in the '60s, mixed race couples could always have stayed with "their own kind". Wasn't just then, isn't just now...
-
And going to head you off at the pass on another make a specious comparison to make you look like a racist: yes, they COULD find a heterosexual partner. And in the '60s, mixed race couples could always have stayed with "their own kind". Wasn't just then, isn't just now...
Not this stuff again. That "argument" holds no water. It is a sieve. No, it is not a sieve, it is a hula hoop. To compare a racial difference to a sameness of gender is beyond arbitrary; there is simply no connection. Yet it is repeated over and over again.
-
nice modification of what I said. Completely bloody wrong, but nice all the same.
It IS the same concept. Based on the idea that these folks, instead of being in a partnership with someone they love, should instead choose to be in a partnership with someone society thinks is "acceptable".
Can take that argument back to turn-of-the-century America, where all the European folks didn't intermarry because it wasn't acceptable...
-
It IS the same concept. Based on the idea that these folks, instead of being in a partnership with someone they love, should instead choose to be in a partnership with someone society thinks is "acceptable".
Can take that argument back to turn-of-the-century America, where all the European folks didn't intermarry because it wasn't acceptable...
Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?
-
Not this stuff again. That "argument" holds no water. It is a sieve. No, it is not a sieve, it is a hula hoop. To compare a racial difference to a sameness of gender is beyond arbitrary; there is simply no connection. Yet it is repeated over and over again.
it is exactly the same argument. individual rights are exactly that. when everyone is willing to accept that personal liberties are not exclusive to those who look or act like "us" all the great things our forefathers wrote about will eventually be realized. (heck we may even start to accept nerds into our society)
-
The real trouble there comes in with the laws on child custody, child support, and (above all else) alimony payments. For instance, there would be great screaming from certain quarters if divorce from wealthy men (even if it's all the woman's fault) didn't come standard with a million-dollar severance package.
According to some, the declining interest in marriage in Europe and Canada has less to do with the acceptance of gay marriage and more to do with alimony and custody issues that have become ridiculously biased.
Recording a legal contract would still be a vital governmental role.....and outside the constructs of religion, that is all that a marriage is, a legal contract between two persons.
-
it is exactly the same argument.
Ah, logic by assertion.
Whether or not government recognizes same-sex couples as marriages isn't a matter of personal liberty or individual rights. The law doesn't stop them from living together, holding wedding ceremonies, or the like. They are free to do these things, but they can't claim a right to have a non-marriage recognized as one, anymore than I can claim a right to have my Matchbox car licensed as a motor vehicle.
-
Recording a legal contract would still be a vital governmental role.....and outside the constructs of religion, that is all that a marriage is, a legal contract between two persons.
Two persons of differing sexes, you mean. Any mention of religion is a red herring.
-
>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<
Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.
Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.
Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).
At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.
Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.
That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.
So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"
-
>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<
Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.
Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.
Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).
At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.
Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.
That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.
So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"
Also it should remain a state issue not an issue for the Fed to be involved. Hell they can't do the job they are supposed to do correctly.
-
True.
Honestly, I use this one in discussion to explain "compromise": one side gets to define marriage as "one man, one woman", while the other side still gets to have the legal protections that were the start of the whole "gay marriage" issue.
My real favorite though, would be the Full Faith and Credit Act. A bill that on one hand, causes all marriage certificates issued by any one state to be recognized by all others. And on the other hand, causes any CCW issued by any state to be recognized by all others.
Could watch both the left AND the right twist and turn on that one... >:D
Anywho: this does NOT have any reason to be put into the Constitution, one direction or the other. That document is a limit on governmental authority: defining what "marriage" is should be outside it's scope
-
I agree. The only thing I see that could pose a problem and it shouldn't be is with the repeal of DADT in the Military.
There is a huge can of worms that is about to be opened and it is going to prove to be interesting.
-
That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful.
So your complaint is that two unequal things do not receive equal treatment. :O ;/ You may think that two men are the equivalent of a married couple, but you are simply wrong and you cannot guilt me into agreeing with you. And the rest of America doesn't seem to be agreeing with you, either.
Anywho: this does NOT have any reason to be put into the Constitution, one direction or the other. That document is a limit on governmental authority: defining what "marriage" is should be outside it's scope
Why?
-
You know an atty could make a fortune in writing up legal documents for same-sex couples to cover all the bases. Wouldn't have to charge a lot but maybe a standard fee schedule based on the types of forms required.
-
So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"
^This. Couples or other small groups of people who want the same privileges and protections afforded to married couples, should have the same available to them.
While I very much disagree with most all other points made in the issue, this is one I agree with. Marriage, like all other religious issues, is one I do not want the government to have any part in. They should be ONLY in the civil/contract side of it. Drop the marriage title, deem it a civil union, and make it available all small groups of people who want it.
-
And the rest of America doesn't seem to be agreeing with you, either.
I would be careful how far you tread down that path if I were you. You are dangerously close to making the assertion that right and wrong are relative, to be determined by what the majority of some subset of people deem to be "right" at any particular point in time.
That leaves the door wide open for the public school system (for one example) to teach following generations what is right as opposed to teaching them how to determine what is right using their own experiences and reasoning.
Or for one religion to decide what is right because they have the most followers.
DD
-
>Ah, logic by assertion. And by this logic, when a same-sex couple is turned away at the courthouse, they are actually being pushed into a relationship with someone else? Are they handing out brides and grooms there, or how does that work, exactly?<
Let me give you an example of the kind of thing we're looking at.
Jim and Dave have lived together for 20 years. Bought a house, supported each-other in successful careers, nursed each-other through illnesses: been, for all intents and purposes, a single entity. Their families both disapprove.
Jim becomes terminally ill. While he's in the hospital, Dave is at his bedside (much like you would be for your wife).
At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.
Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars, drawing up wills and suchlike. To get the same protections Spoon and I got for $65 at the courthouse.
That's just one example of the inequality, Fistful. There have been same-sex partners barred from being at their partners bedside in the hospital, numerous examples of the above story, and other legal entanglements... all of which would have been avoided if they had that protection.
So... let the government handle the legal contract issue, make it between any two or more consenting adults (with no other qualifiers), and let the churches handle the word "marriage"
There is so much logic fail and category error, I'd compare it to the Underpants Gnomes path to wealth, but I fear dissing the shoddy logic of diminutive demi-humans after the last Monster Hunter book I read.
But, time is short, so I'll just hit one teensy myth used as a truncheon by the :
At the same time, Jim's family sweeps in. Changes the locks on the house (which was in Jim's name), and basically takes everything the two of them had. Dave's legal recourse is nil, as they don't enjoy the same legal protection a married couple does.
Yes, they COULD have spent thousands of dollars...
"Dave" is a nitwit. His nitwittery is of epic proportions.
It would not cost thousands of dollars to rectify his situation, just a mere $45:
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11604502&Ne=5000001%204000000&eCat=BC|84|20522&N=4001505%204294966444&Mo=0&No=0&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.costco.com%2FImages%2FContent%2FProduct%2F537852.jpg&hash=d99c82856dac9d2e292417882665e596ef067dbe)
Legal Will
Health Care Directive
Financial Powers of Attorney
Executor Documents
Information for Caregivers and Survivors
Final Arrangements
And, there's MORE!
Plan Your Estate (your comprehensive guide to creating the right estate plan)
The Executor’s Guide (settle a loved one’s estate or trust)
Easy Ways to Lower Your Taxes (simple strategies every tax payer should know)
IRAs, 401(k)s & Other Retirement Plans (how to take your money out and avoid penalties)
Get It Together (organize your records, so your family won’t have to!)
Long-Term Care (plan and pay for the right long-term care for loved ones and self)
101 Law Forms for Personal Use (forms for handling every day legal tasks)
Audio: The Busy Family’s Guide to Money, Retire Happy (1-hour audio book samplers)
"Dave" doesn't need to overturn millenia of social practice and mores, he just needs to have an IQ greater than his shoe size (and $45). Or, maybe the wisdom to understand that if "Jim," his [Princess_Bride]twue wuv[/Princess_Bride], has had 20 years to square away his affairs but did not include Dave in the arrangements, maybe Jim doesn't want Dave to get his stuff and wants his real family to dispose of his material existence. That is the price anyone would likely pay for hitching one's wagon to a thoughtless bounder for two decades.
Whoops, my bad. All "Dave" would need is $35 from nolo for th esame product:
http://www.nolo.com/products/quicken-willmaker-plus-WQP.html
That tool worked for my wife & I. My FIL, retired lawyer-critter, gave the docs the thumbs-up.
-
You know an atty could make a fortune in writing up legal documents for same-sex couples to cover all the bases. Wouldn't have to charge a lot but maybe a standard fee schedule based on the types of forms required.
Not if the same-sex couple had two brain cells to rub together and $35.
-
Ah, logic by assertion.
Whether or not government recognizes same-sex couples as marriages isn't a matter of personal liberty or individual rights. The law doesn't stop them from living together, holding wedding ceremonies, or the like. They are free to do these things, but they can't claim a right to have a non-marriage recognized as one, anymore than I can claim a right to have my Matchbox car licensed as a motor vehicle.
so an amendment that said only men have the right to vote would be okay, as it does not per se discriminate against women, correct?
-
The whole legal aspect is a red herring (regarding gay marriage)
It is all about legislating morality, apparently if you are on the right it is wrong, if you are on the left it is OK.
Fistful is correct in that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
Trying to shoehorn homosexual relationships into thousands of years of cultural norms and at least several hundred years of jurisprudence regarding marriage is just insanity. They are not the same.
Much of our law regarding true marriage is based on anachronistic concepts of gender roles thereby favoring women oftentimes where it concerns divorce, alimony and child support. No doubt there is an equally unequal aspect that favors men over women. I've heard the horror stories from friends of both genders regarding their divorces. From an outsider looking in it sure seems like that area of law hasn't kept up with the times. Trying to make our byzantine and oftentimes arbitrary system for dealing with these issues work for same sex couples seems ridiculous.
Forcing social acceptance by use of the coercive power of the state is the real goal.
-
painting a person as a leftist for supporting gays seems counterintuitive. isn't it the conservatives that stand for liberty in this country?
-
painting a person as a leftist for supporting gays seems counterintuitive. isn't it the conservatives that stand for liberty in this country?
The GM debate is about using the force of gov't to force others to acknowledge the legitimacy of an heretofore illegitimate and foreign practice as well as using the force of gov't to violate the rights of free expression and free association. Toss into the mix an antipathy to both Christianity and the American culture.
Those are leftist means and ends and attitudes, no matter the claims of their advocates.
-
painting a person as a leftist for supporting gays seems counterintuitive. isn't it the conservatives that stand for liberty in this country?
I always find it funny when people supporting gay marriage claim it's about liberty.
Yes, it's the liberty to use the government to force other people to accept your relationship and treat you the way you want to be treated.
WOOOO Liberty!!
-
I would be careful how far you tread down that path if I were you. You are dangerously close to making the assertion that right and wrong are relative, to be determined by what the majority of some subset of people deem to be "right" at any particular point in time.
That leaves the door wide open for the public school system (for one example) to teach following generations what is right as opposed to teaching them how to determine what is right using their own experiences and reasoning.
Or for one religion to decide what is right because they have the most followers.
DD
I'm on no such path, and I'm not dangerously close to any such thing. You, meanwhile, are "on the path" of mistaking a descriptive statement for a supporting argument.
-
so an amendment that said only men have the right to vote would be okay, as it does not per se discriminate against women, correct?
No, that's a textbook example of discrimination. A fitting analogy for the current discussion would be to submit a blank postcard as a ballot, then feign outrage when it is not accepted.
-
^This. Couples or other small groups of people who want the same privileges and protections afforded to married couples, should have the same available to them.
While I very much disagree with most all other points made in the issue, this is one I agree with. Marriage, like all other religious issues, is one I do not want the government to have any part in. They should be ONLY in the civil/contract side of it. Drop the marriage title, deem it a civil union, and make it available all small groups of people who want it.
The only problem with this is the radical activists pushing this have refused to compromise. They want their "marriage" recognized. They want the govt to declare them "normal". This isn't about spousal rights. That is just window dressing.
-
I always find it funny when people supporting gay marriage claim it's about liberty.
Yes, it's the liberty to use the government to force other people to accept your relationship and treat you the way you want to be treated.
WOOOO Liberty!!
Huh? How does asking for the same concrete legal protections as others amount to "forcing acceptance" of a relationship?
Requiring a court to divide up assets in a certain way isn't forced acceptance.
Jfruser, there is no contract substitute for the property and personal rights of marriage. Sorry, but a "make your own will" kit can't deliver better than your state's best lawyers, and none of them can design a contract equivalent to marriage in substantive rights.
-
Huh? How does asking for the same concrete legal protections as others amount to "forcing acceptance" of a relationship?
Requiring a court to divide up assets in a certain way isn't forced acceptance.
Jfruser, there is no contract substitute for the property and personal rights of marriage. Sorry, but a "make your own will" kit can't deliver better than your state's best lawyers, and none of them can design a contract equivalent to marriage in substantive rights.
Impressive evasion and diversion.
So would gay marriage supporters be happy with a simple reworking of inheritance laws? If your answer is no, perhaps there is more than inheritance laws involved in the "forcing people to treat you the way you want to be treated."
Asking for the "same concrete legal protections" is folly if those concrete legal protections were created for a different entity. Do I have the protections of a corporation in my sole-proprietorship? Do I have the benefits of a handicapped license plate? Can I get the tax exemptions of clergy in my (non-clergical) job?
By FORCING companies and individuals to treat you as though you are one of the entities, you are using the force of the government to change how you are treated. That is what this is about: forcing adoption agencies, insurance agencies, employers, inter alia to treat gay couples they way they want to be treated.
WOOO! LIB-ER-TY!
-
Asking for the "same concrete legal protections" is folly if those concrete legal protections were created for a different entity. Do I have the protections of a corporation in my sole-proprietorship? Do I have the benefits of a handicapped license plate? Can I get the tax exemptions of clergy in my (non-clergical) job?
This. It ain't about religion or morality. It's about the substantive difference between marriages and things that simply can't be marriages.
-
This. It ain't about religion or morality. It's about the substantive difference between marriages and things that simply can't be marriages.
What is it that says they can't be marriages? It wouldn't be religion, would it?
-
What is it that says they can't be marriages? It wouldn't be religion, would it?
Common sense. Biology. Things of that nature.
Religions tend to condemn homosexuality, but they also tend to condemn stealing and oath-breaking and murder and a lot of other things. Yet we accept those other religious teachings as part of our legal system. Interesting, no?
-
I'm on no such path, and I'm not dangerously close to any such thing. You, meanwhile, are "on the path" of mistaking a descriptive statement for a supporting argument.
You don't take suggestions very well, do you. Nevermind. You just continue on exemplifying a good Christian demeanor.
DD
-
Common sense.
What is that? The phrase is so used and abused I don't really know. Most of the time it really means "because I said so".
Biology.
Marriage is a biological thing now? Do tell.
Religions tend to condemn homosexuality, but they also tend to condemn stealing and oath-breaking and murder and a lot of other things. Yet we accept those other religious teachings as part of our legal system. Interesting, no?
And we do not accept as part of our legal system a whopping pile of other teachings from those same religions. Interesting, no?
-
You don't take suggestions very well, do you.
And you don't read very closely. And thanks for the smug comment about my demeanor, dad. ;/
-
Impressive evasion and diversion.
So would gay marriage supporters be happy with a simple reworking of inheritance laws? If your answer is no, perhaps there is more than inheritance laws involved in the "forcing people to treat you the way you want to be treated."
Asking for the "same concrete legal protections" is folly if those concrete legal protections were created for a different entity. Do I have the protections of a corporation in my sole-proprietorship? Do I have the benefits of a handicapped license plate? Can I get the tax exemptions of clergy in my (non-clergical) job?
By FORCING companies and individuals to treat you as though you are one of the entities, you are using the force of the government to change how you are treated. That is what this is about: forcing adoption agencies, insurance agencies, employers, inter alia to treat gay couples they way they want to be treated.
WOOO! LIB-ER-TY!
Okay, first off - you could in theory go through the codes and enact changes to match marriage, and then go around identifying every case that's applied them to be sure and find a legislative equivalent. Or you could just say "a marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex" and get the same result with far less work and far less risk of error. Doing that amount of work would be catering to people who oppose gay marriage, and nothing more.
Your analogies are absolutely missing the point. A sole proprietorship and a corporation serve two different functions, and we all agree that they serve two different functions. Whether a marriage between two of the same gender serves the same purpose as a marriage between opposite genders is precisely the moral question that gay rights activists are challenging. That's the whole point - they claim that their relationships ought to be treated as equal to any others, and that they are not qualitatively different in the way that a corporation is different from a partnership.
An appropriate analogy might be one clergyman claiming he should have the same tax exemptions as the clergy of another Church, and that for the Government to deny him such protections would be discrimination against his religion.
We do, btw, force companies to treat members of different races and religions as if they are equal, whether those companies want to or not.
What this all boils down to is very simple, and it tends to be assumed in the positions of either side. The real issue: Should people who are gay receive the same legal rights as people who are not gay? Underlying all this talk about how gay marriage isn't about equality is the assumption that gay people are not entitled to equal legal protections.
-
Common sense.
What is that? The phrase is so used and abused I don't really know. Most of the time it really means "because I said so".
So marriage has been uniformly heterosexual around the world, for all of human history, with very, very few exceptions. That is, it has been accepted by somewhere north of 99.99% of all human beings that have ever lived. That pretty much defines "common sense."
Marriage is a biological thing now? Do tell.
Um. Yeah. You know about sex, right? ???
And we do not accept as part of our legal system a whopping pile of other teachings from those same religions. Interesting, no?
So bringing up religion doesn't get us anywhere, does it?
-
So marriage has been uniformly heterosexual around the world, for all of human history, with very, very few exceptions. That is, it has been accepted by somewhere north of 99.99% of all human beings that have ever lived. That pretty much defines "common sense."
At one time it was common sense that the Earth was flat. Or it was common sense that marriage should only be between people of the same standing in society. Or that marriage is only between people of the same race. That one was even written into law. Where are those common sense ideas now?
Um. Yeah. You know about sex, right? ???
Yeah, and what's it got to do with marriage? People who can't have sex at all can marry just fine.
So bringing up religion doesn't get us anywhere, does it?
There are no logical arguments against GM. Faith, unrelated to logic by definition, is the only thing that is left.
-
And you don't read very closely.
Uh, yes I do. That's why I was advising that you were close to saying it. If I read that you were saying it, then I would have used different words. Words saying that you actually did say it. See the difference? Do you even understand that I was trying to help you? To let you know how others might misinterpret what you were saying? And for trying to help, I get a snarky response.
And thanks for the smug comment about my demeanor, dad. ;/
You're welcome, sonny. You earned it.
DD
-
Okay, first off - you could in theory go through the codes and enact changes to match marriage, and then go around identifying every case that's applied them to be sure and find a legislative equivalent. Or you could just say "a marriage is between two consenting adults of any sex" and get the same result with far less work and far less risk of error. Doing that amount of work would be catering to people who oppose gay marriage, and nothing more.
Your analogies are absolutely missing the point. A sole proprietorship and a corporation serve two different functions, and we all agree that they serve two different functions. Whether a marriage between two of the same gender serves the same purpose as a marriage between opposite genders is precisely the moral question that gay rights activists are challenging. That's the whole point - they claim that their relationships ought to be treated as equal to any others, and that they are not qualitatively different in the way that a corporation is different from a partnership.
An appropriate analogy might be one clergyman claiming he should have the same tax exemptions as the clergy of another Church, and that for the Government to deny him such protections would be discrimination against his religion.
We do, btw, force companies to treat members of different races and religions as if they are equal, whether those companies want to or not.
What this all boils down to is very simple, and it tends to be assumed in the positions of either side. The real issue: Should people who are gay receive the same legal rights as people who are not gay? Underlying all this talk about how gay marriage isn't about equality is the assumption that gay people are not entitled to equal legal protections.
My analogies are absolutely apt. A sole proprietorship may resemble a corporation. A motivational speaker may resemble a minister. A guy with a charlie horse may resemble a permanently handicapped person. We recognize that there are actual differences between these people and associations because however much they have in common, they are still different in very important aspects.
And you are quite right, the real issue is that homosexual couples are not the same as married couples. This is the entire argument that is glossed over with the "but they're two people who LOOOOOOVE each other! It's exactly the same!" They are not the same.
Our society has for a significant amount of time recognized and encouraged marriage because a man and a woman in a committed relationship create benefits for society as a whole. This is not the first time our society has tampered with marriage, either. The lawmakers in the 60's and 70's decided that the traditions and laws that had existed for hundreds and thousands of years were just wrong and created so-called "no-fault divorce." They claimed society would benefit as people who disliked each other would obviously create an unstable situation for children. Instead, we have found that children are best raised in a home with their biological parents together in a committed relationship. Even after children are grown, if parents divorce it causes significant harm to their grown children. (Please note, I am not saying that divorce is never warranted. I am saying that it is far too easy, though.)
The argument now is, "the children will adjust, they are resilient.'' We have encouraged adults to follow their fickle desires over the needs of their children. This is not simply the result of "no-fault divorce" legislation but of societal rejection of traditions and laws they do not understand.
This current argument is but another step in stripping away these traditions and mores are not fully understood. Our society suffers for it.
We support and encourage marriage for more than simply child-rearing and stability, however. To apply the same structure and benefits to a homosexual couple simply because some people think it's the same thing will cause harm to our society.
-
Uh, yes I do. That's why I was advising that you were close to saying it. If I read that you were saying it, then I would have used different words. Words saying that you actually did say it. See the difference? Do you even understand that I was trying to help you? To let you know how others might misinterpret what you were saying? And for trying to help, I get a snarky response.
I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings. I'm sorry you weren't able to express yourself clearly, but don't blame me for it.
-
At one time it was common sense that the Earth was flat. Or it was common sense that marriage should only be between people of the same standing in society. Or that marriage is only between people of the same race. That one was even written into law. Where are those common sense ideas now?
You've forgotten what we were talking about. You suggested that religion was the reason why marriage has historically been heterosexual. I supplied some non-religious avenues of explanation, which transcend religious differences. Whether or not they are good reasons for the heterosexuality of marriage is not the point. The point is that you are wrong to single out religion as the only possible answer.
You're also comparing ideas that have drifted in and out of fashion with certain groups of people, with an idea that has always been believed by the vast majority of people.
Yeah, and what's it got to do with marriage? People who can't have sex at all can marry just fine.
Again, we're discussing the origin of mankind’s firm conviction that marriage requires a male-female dynamic. It is beyond obvious that it probably arose from the fact that families were united and new families created by procreation (that's biological and involved sex, you know). Since homosexual sex doesn't create children, it's easy to see why marriage only made sense for male-female couples.
There are no logical arguments against GM. Faith, unrelated to logic by definition, is the only thing that is left.
As I point out every time this comes up, if you want to change the law, it's on you to provide a cogent argument. The world is waiting. Also, you have the wrong definition of faith.
-
And this last bit of arguing back and forth is why I want the government out of "marriage".
Either make some form of civil contract, easily usable by any two or more consenting adults, or completely do away with any form of it (and require EVERYBODY to jump through all those same hoops).
If someone wants to be "married", they can find a church that will preform the ceremony...
-
Homosexual relationships that were recognized and lasting are by no means a historical oddity - there's decent evidence that modern religious ideas about it are the anomaly, not the other way around. There's a fairly extensive body of medieval Islamic law, for example, on gay marriages between sailors
-
Homosexual relationships that were recognized and lasting are by no means a historical oddity - there's decent evidence that modern religious ideas about it are the anomaly, not the other way around. There's a fairly extensive body of medieval Islamic law, for example, on gay marriages between sailors
And these were considered to be equal to male-female marriages? And would these be sufficient reason for marriage to be viewed as just any old contract between two consenting adults? And how does this Islamic law affect the claim that religion is somehow unfairly keeping homosexual couples from marriage?
-
And these were considered to be equal to male-female marriages? And would these be sufficient reason for marriage to be viewed as just any old contract between two consenting adults? And how does this Islamic law affect the claim that religion is somehow unfairly keeping homosexual couples from marriage?
The point is that your claim about 99 percent of humanity finding homosexuality to be wrong is not correct. Those relationships weren't the same as marriage, but they were accepted and legally recognized. They were not "any old contract" as the idea of a generic "right of contract" is relatively recent as well.
Homosexuality hasn't been universally outlawed or considered repugnant, that's the point. It's entirely possible that it predates monogamy as a behaviour.
-
You've forgotten what we were talking about. You suggested that religion was the reason why marriage has historically been heterosexual. I supplied some non-religious avenues of explanation, which transcend religious differences. Whether or not they are good reasons for the heterosexuality of marriage is not the point. The point is that you are wrong to single out religion as the only possible answer.
No. That's not what I said.
What I said is that religion is the only reason to fight it now. I said nothing about reasons for the supposed historical state of things, which, as DeSelby pointed out, is not what you think, anyway. I also said that "many people did it this way for a long time" is not a good reason for much of anything.
You're also comparing ideas that have drifted in and out of fashion with certain groups of people, with an idea that has always been believed by the vast majority of people.
And that is not correct either. I am not talking about small groups. Flat Earth thing was pretty damn universal for a long time. Miscegenation was widely enough feared that it made it into law in more than a few places. Owning slaves was also widely acceptable to the vast majority of people for many centuries and across cultures, yet it is deemed wrong now.
Again, we're discussing the origin of mankind’s firm conviction that marriage requires a male-female dynamic. It is beyond obvious that it probably arose from the fact that families were united and new families created by procreation (that's biological and involved sex, you know). Since homosexual sex doesn't create children, it's easy to see why marriage only made sense for male-female couples.
Nether does sex between people beyond a certain age, sex between people with certain disabilities, sex between people who choose not to reproduce. And some people can't have sex at all. All of those can marry, and by and large always could. What makes them different from a homosexual couple? Sex is something that may happen, but is not part of marriage as a legal construct.
-
The point is that your claim about 99 percent of humanity finding homosexuality to be wrong is not correct. Those relationships weren't the same as marriage, but they were accepted and legally recognized. They were not "any old contract" as the idea of a generic "right of contract" is relatively recent as well.
Homosexuality hasn't been universally outlawed or considered repugnant, that's the point. It's entirely possible that it predates monogamy as a behaviour.
I wasn't talking about moral views. I was talking about how marriage has been defined. You said that your example was not considered to be equivalent to marriage, which does not contradict my point.
-
Blah blah blah, everyone is just reciting their personal talking points.
Chris