TitanTiger 20,511 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period. Genetically and biologically speaking, race is a relatively meaningless distinction. Race is mostly a cultural construct, defined by things like skin color. And skin color definitely has a huge environmental factor. We all know that. But race, for lack of a better term, is an issue here. Don't be obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not to mention that would essentially imply that all "marriages" that have been done are legally unconstitutional and perhaps null and void. Not anymore than declaring that polyamorous groupings are not 'marriage' in a legal sense means that any current heterosexual marriages are null and void. Well, I didn't express it well, but my point is that if one argues that religion has an exclusive right to the word "marriage" then the Government cannot use the word in lieu of some secular alternative, which could theoretically make all present and past usage of the word by the Gov't to be null and void. This assumes the word marriage has always had such a religious meaning. And if one argues that this religious exclusivity is not retroactive, then it becomes a current act of Government which "respects" a religion, thus making it unconstitutional. But if you want to simply ignore the possibility of the former, that's OK with me. But it wouldn't really change anything. Gays will still get their legal unions just like heterosexuals and call their union a marriage just like heterosexuals. But as a practical matter it ain't going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period. Genetically and biologically speaking, race is a relatively meaningless distinction. Race is mostly a cultural construct, defined by things like skin color. And skin color definitely has a huge environmental factor. We all know that. But race, for lack of a better term, is an issue here. Don't be obtuse. It's not obtuse. It's a reasonable parallel. Making a distinction between people based on their sexuality is just as arbitrary as doing so on the basis of race. We are essentially the same, black, white, heterosexual, homosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not to mention that would essentially imply that all "marriages" that have been done are legally unconstitutional and perhaps null and void. Not anymore than declaring that polyamorous groupings are not 'marriage' in a legal sense means that any current heterosexual marriages are null and void. Well, I didn't express it well, but my point is that if one argues that religion has an exclusive right to the word "marriage" then the Government cannot use the word in lieu of some secular alternative, which could theoretically make all present and past usage of the word by the Gov't to be null and void. This assumes the word marriage has always had such a religious meaning. And if one argues that this religious exclusivity is not retroactive, then it becomes a current act of Government which "respects" a religion, thus making it unconstitutional. But if you want to simply ignore the possibility of the former, that's OK with me. But it wouldn't really change anything. Gays will still get their legal unions just like heterosexuals and call their union a marriage just like heterosexuals. But as a practical matter it ain't going to happen. Oh, I understand you now. I don't actually think such a thing is workable either. What would actually have to happen would be that so far as the government is concerned, it only recognizes what it calls "civil unions" for everyone it chooses to bestow it upon. "Marriage" would become an informal term the couple calls their relationship or, of course, a term that churches and other religious institutions would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period. Genetically and biologically speaking, race is a relatively meaningless distinction. Race is mostly a cultural construct, defined by things like skin color. And skin color definitely has a huge environmental factor. We all know that. But race, for lack of a better term, is an issue here. Don't be obtuse. It's not obtuse. It's a reasonable parallel. Making a distinction between people based on their sexuality is just as arbitrary as doing so on the basis of race. We are essentially the same, black, white, heterosexual, homosexual. It is obtuse. We're all smart people here. We know that there's really only one race....humans. But that is not the construct that we have been talking about nor what racial discrimination laws are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 80 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Race on the other hand doesn't have an environmental factor. No matter how much black culture I bombard my lily white daughters with from the day they're born, they will always be white. Period. Genetically and biologically speaking, race is a relatively meaningless distinction. Race is mostly a cultural construct, defined by things like skin color. And skin color definitely has a huge environmental factor. We all know that. But race, for lack of a better term, is an issue here. Don't be obtuse. It is more relevant to the argument than comparing polygamy to gay marriage. Race is not necessarily genetics but rather perception, yet we cannot base marriage laws on race. Gender is far less a matter of perception, so why should we base marriage laws on gender? Furthermore, religious beliefs are arguably zero parts genetic (though I would venture genes do play a role), yet we cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs. Whether or not something is determined by genetics is not a valid litmus test for whether it should be legal to discriminate against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Which brings my attention back to the discussion. Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way? (I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking) If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how. It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom. Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two? It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes. But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country? Out of thin air? :-\ This is not the government's idea. It comes from the people who are directly affected. And I see no more problem with expanding the definition of marriage than expanding the definition of suffrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selias 2,398 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Which brings my attention back to the discussion. Does anyone here feel that same sex marriage benefits our country in any way? (I only mean this in the realm of procreation helps a society survive way of thinking) If you feel that it does benefit our country and/or government please explain how. It absolutely does benefit our country. The US is based upon the Rule of Law, by prohibiting a segment of our population from enjoying the full rights, benefits and privileges we undermine everything we, as a country, are built on. If we deny freedom to any of our fellow citizens (in good standing), we deny ourselves true freedom. Like polygamists or polyamorists? Or is it that the sex of the participants isn't sacrosanct, but the number is imbued with some magical quality that leaves it at two? It's the number of participants due to the legalese around marriage. If you want to engage in a polygamous or polyamorous relationship, I've got no problem with that either. I would be perfectly fine with removing the government completely from our bedrooms and homes. But that's not what's happening. The government is getting more involved by creating, out of thin air, a new definition of marriage that now scraps the notion of it being one man and one woman and can now be two men or two women. So do you feel the government is denying polygamists and polyamorists the full rights, benefits and privileges of being Americans? Does that deny freedom to the and undermine everything we are built on? Are there any limits you would impose? What if an adult brother and sister wanted to marry? If they promised to both be sterilized would refusing them the legal recognition of marriage be undermining who we are as a country? Let's cut to the chase, the only thing I would against is bestiality and that's because an animal cannot consent. As it currently stands, poly relationships are "gaming" the system. If you want to get your freak on with your sister and/or brother, go for it. Just don't expect the state to handle the offspring's care. I'm a governmental minimalist. I used to identify as a Libertarian but I'm not a full blown anarchist. You're still not quite answering the question though. We aren't debating whether or not a brother and sister can shack up and have sex. Or whether two women and three men can all live together and swap partners every night. We already permit people to do such things if that's what floats their boat. Call it a "passive" right if you will. What we are debating is whether the gov't has any obligation to offer an "active" right...to sanction these varying arrangements as a marriage with all the rights and privileges thereof...including, if you've paid much attention to the headlines over the last year or two, the right to coerce private business owners to materially participate in your wedding ceremony such as accepting a job as your wedding photographer. If you asserting that if we do not confer said rights on all these arrangements that we've somehow lost who we are as a country undermined everything we were built on? We're talking two different issues here. As someone said above this, those poly relationships are illegal regardless of makeup (MMF, MMM, FFF, MFF, etc...). My issue with legalizing relationships like that is that they game the system. A homosexual relationship does not game the system because the system is built for "two" for tax & legal reasons. By neglecting homosexual couples, we are limiting their full participation in all the legal rights and benefits. The second issue is, I have no problem with any of those relationship types. End the marriage benefits conferred by government and all may live equally under the Rule of Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 We're talking two different issues here. As someone said above this, those poly relationships are illegal regardless of makeup (MMF, MMM, FFF, MFF, etc...). My issue with legalizing relationships like that is that they game the system. A homosexual relationship does not game the system because the system is built for "two" for tax & legal reasons. By neglecting homosexual couples, we are limiting their full participation in all the legal rights and benefits. But there's no reason for them to be illegal that doesn't also apply to SSM. There's nothing sacred about the number "two" with regard to marriage if there's nothing sacred about the sex of the participants either. There's no logical reason to deny people the right to marry a sibling, or to have two wives or two husbands. If you're going to open up the definition of marriage to allow same sex, there's no leg to stand on to deny these others either. The second issue is, I have no problem with any of those relationship types. End the marriage benefits conferred by government and all may live equally under the Rule of Law Well, not surprisingly, I do. But I'm not for barging into people's homes and bothering them over it either. I just don't feel we are obligated to confer the title and rights of marriage on whatever arrangement they've decided to come up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selias 2,398 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Titan, then end the marriage benefits for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not to mention that would essentially imply that all "marriages" that have been done are legally unconstitutional and perhaps null and void. Not anymore than declaring that polyamorous groupings are not 'marriage' in a legal sense means that any current heterosexual marriages are null and void. Well, I didn't express it well, but my point is that if one argues that religion has an exclusive right to the word "marriage" then the Government cannot use the word in lieu of some secular alternative, which could theoretically make all present and past usage of the word by the Gov't to be null and void. This assumes the word marriage has always had such a religious meaning. And if one argues that this religious exclusivity is not retroactive, then it becomes a current act of Government which "respects" a religion, thus making it unconstitutional. But if you want to simply ignore the possibility of the former, that's OK with me. But it wouldn't really change anything. Gays will still get their legal unions just like heterosexuals and call their union a marriage just like heterosexuals. But as a practical matter it ain't going to happen. Oh, I understand you now. I don't actually think such a thing is workable either. What would actually have to happen would be that so far as the government is concerned, it only recognizes what it calls "civil unions" for everyone it chooses to bestow it upon. "Marriage" would become an informal term the couple calls their relationship or, of course, a term that churches and other religious institutions would use. Fine, I would go for that. Not sure that it accomplishes anything but if it addresses the religious - or any other objection - to gay marriage, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 selias....great idea!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 80 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 But there's no reason for them to be illegal that doesn't also apply to SSM. There's nothing sacred about the number "two" with regard to marriage if there's nothing sacred about the sex of the participants either. There's no logical reason to deny people the right to marry a sibling, or to have two wives or two husbands. If you're going to open up the definition of marriage to allow same sex, there's no leg to stand on to deny these others either. Nonsense. Because being married offers various advantages, there should be restrictions. But the restrictions can't be based on things like race or gender, because such restrictions are clearly unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Titan, then end the marriage benefits for all. That's easy to say, but it would totally blow up our legal system regarding joint property, estate law, child custody, and other stuff that doesn't quickly come to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hate to say it, but I agree with the crazy admin on this. If same-sex marriage is legal, then why not polygamy and guys marrying their cousins, sisters, brothers, or women marrying their sisters, or brothers, or the like? To say that those situations are wrong would be bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hate to say it, but I agree with the crazy admin on this. If same-sex marriage is legal, then why not polygamy and guys marrying their cousins, sisters, brothers, or women marrying their sisters, or brothers, or the like? To say that those situations are wrong would be bigotry. Maybe. But they sure ain't legal. And there's obviously not enough political constituency to make them legal. Not even the Mormons support legalizing polygamy. And not even the bammers support legalizing incestuous marriage. Most importantly, they are all quite irrelevant to the gay marriage issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 80 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hate to say it, but I agree with the crazy admin on this. If same-sex marriage is legal, then why not polygamy and guys marrying their cousins, sisters, brothers, or women marrying their sisters, or brothers, or the like? To say that those situations are wrong would be bigotry. This is the mindless go to arguement, and why it is invalid has been explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,511 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Maybe. But they sure ain't legal. Neither was same sex marriage in any state just a few years ago. Still isn't in many. And there's obviously not enough political constituency to make them legal. Not even the Mormons support legalizing polygamy.And not even the bammers support legalizing incestuous marriage. Well bammers not withstanding, is how many there are really the point? Are anti-discrimination laws supposed to protect those who don't have the numbers to protect themselves? Most importantly, they are all quite irrelevant to the gay marriage issue. Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Maybe. But they sure ain't legal. Neither was same sex marriage in any state just a few years ago. Still isn't in many. Correct, and now that is changing because there is a constituency that has made a good enough case for it to persuade enough judges and people in the body politic to make it happen. Let me know when that happens for polygamy and incestuous marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Well bammers not withstanding, is how many there are really the point? Are anti-discrimination laws supposed to protect those who don't have the numbers to protect themselves? No. At least if they make a case that can succeed in our court system. Of course, if said courts cede the issue to the body politic, then yes, the numbers supporting it are critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,447 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Most importantly, they are all quite irrelevant to the gay marriage issue. Not at all. Yes indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Titan, then end the marriage benefits for all. Will someone pick up that baby? ( The one that just got tossed out with the bath water)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,457 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Hate to say it, but I agree with the crazy admin on this. If same-sex marriage is legal, then why not polygamy and guys marrying their cousins, sisters, brothers, or women marrying their sisters, or brothers, or the like? To say that those situations are wrong would be bigotry. Bingo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Weagle777.......you forgot some bammers are already doing some of what you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Since AUfan59 said my post was stupid, I wonder why? Who are we to judge someone who falls in love with their sister or brother? Why is that considered wrong if two men or two women can marry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.