Again, Riggen... I don't consider those things 'rights'. The concept of 'smoker's rights' is truly laughable to me.
Not my problem. You don't get to dictate your own personal definitions to the rest of the world. No comment regarding the death penalty? I assume you do actually believe life is an absolute right.
your example of self-marriage is ludicrous
As I thought it was obviously intended to be. Hope you got a laugh out of it.
Partha, couldn't you at least have the wit to come up with an analogy that works? Hmm, I guess that's the soft bigotry of high expectations.
Eid the day you show me evidence that the Rev. King wanted to deny rights and freedoms to one class while maintaining or granting them to another class is the day I will admit you are right.
As for McBash, unless people are completly uneducated they had to have realised that gay marriage would never be recognized by the Christian or Catholic religions, they know this was only about being recognized on a legal level completly a cival matter (aka a cival union). It would be no more a marriage than any hetero couple that was married in a court of law. That being said and going under the assumption that this county's citezens are not utter and complete idiots they must have known the above facts. The only way they could have voted against this is if they were against cival unions (and by the way 7 of the 9 states that voted and passed the ban also voted and passed a ban on civial unions). You still claim that those voting against gay marriage were not doing so based solely on religious ideals and making them into state law?
As I stated in an above reply, gays can be married and always have been just not by christian or catholic cerimonies (there are religions out there that allow this and couples can be married with those religion's cerimonies). This vote was to have those marriages recognized by the state and to allow the state to perform the legal cerimonies needed, however it was denied because of the biggotry and hatred that the majority of Americans harbor twords the gay community.
I happen to agree that the right to life can be given up. I also can envision suitably disgusting circumstances such that the right of marriage could also be revoked. Since your stance seems to be that rights are either absolute or aren't rights at all, it's a little puzzling why you then consider marriage to be a 'right' but not life.
...so, being strapped into a chair and shot full of enough barbiturate to stop your heart is something Scott Petersen is VOLUNTEERING to do?
Or are you arguing that Scott Petersen forfeited his right to continue breathing when he chose to murder his pregnant wife? I suspect that both Petersen and his lawyer would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. And of course, one might also make the case that gays forfeited their right to marriage when they chose to partner with someone of the same gender. The comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
Frankly, Relbeek, I don't see this natural law tangent as offering any useful perspectives on the problem. These last few posts on the subject read like the argument of how the Babel Fish (dis)proves the existence of God. There is no natural law, absolute, inalienable right to marry...she can say no. The natural law you're thinking of is the right to refuse or consent to sex, the violation of which right is, of course, rape.
But the disconnect occurs when you try to confuse the issue of sex with the issue of marriage. The reason gays want marriage is not for sex. They can do that just fine in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They can move in together, they can arrange their lives however they like. The practical thing they want out of a civil union or marriage contract is the "you are legally the same person in two bodies" aspect of marriage, where all property is entailed, you are automatically assumed to be each others' heirs, you have power of attorney for each other, etc...
A civil union would give them all the same applicable legal rights and obligations as a common law marriage, so the only reason I can see for turning such a compromise down would be a hissy fit over not having to decide which guy got to wear the white dress, and not having as good an excuse to throw an expensive party.
Kinda ironic that in this day and age of divorce, hetero couples are using prenuptial agreements to limit the same contractual aspects of marriage that gays are fighting so fiercely to attain...
The real problem, of course, is making sure that states, companies, and individuals follow the law instead of breaking it, otherwise it's Jim Crow all over again.
[quote="Eidolon FaerOr are you arguing that Scott Petersen forfeited his right to continue breathing when he chose to murder his pregnant wife? I suspect that both Petersen and his lawyer would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. And of course, one might also make the case that gays forfeited their right to marriage when they chose to partner with someone of the same gender. The comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny[/quote]
You are going under the assumption that a homosexual woman or man CHOSE to be gay. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, you never made the choice to be straight unless you are telling us Eid thatyou have a deep physical and mental attraction to men (or woman if you are a woman) but are with a woman.
As for Scott Petersen I would argue that any criminal who commits an act that requires the death penalty did make the choice to commit the act and therefore made thier life forfiet by that choice. Granted he didn't chose thier own death when causing the death of his wife and unborn child, in fact I am sure his choice would be to get away with it free and easy with no consequenses, however he chose to take thier life and by doing so that choice led to the ultimate end of death. Someone may not chose death when they load a gun with 5 out of 6 bullets and pull the trigger, however the choice of thier actions will lead to the outcome of death. So yes you may argue that he did not chose death, however it is similiarly argued that the choices he made had the outcome of death so it was ultimatly his choice wether he commited the actions or not that led to his own death. One last example, a drunk driver may not chose death, however they chose to get behind the wheel while intoxicated which can and does ultimatly lead to death, but they still never chose death as they got in the car, they just chose the actions which led to it and did so willingly as did Scott Peterson.
Eidolon Faer wrote:...so, being strapped into a chair and shot full of enough barbiturate to stop your heart is something Scott Petersen is VOLUNTEERING to do?
Or are you arguing that Scott Petersen forfeited his right to continue breathing when he chose to murder his pregnant wife? I suspect that both Petersen and his lawyer would disagree with you in the strongest possible terms. And of course, one might also make the case that gays forfeited their right to marriage when they chose to partner with someone of the same gender. The comparison doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
I believe his postion is that when some one choses to behave in a certian way in Relbeek's opinion you forefit your right to live. So i'd not call it volunteering so much as ( if he is actually guilty) a result of a choice he voluntarially made. There is also evidence that sexual orientation is not necessarially a choice one makes as a choice one is born with.( at least in part) This makes your argument of choice immaterial. Then it is discrimination based upon something outside the person's control.( like based upon age/sex/race)
Eidolon Faer wrote:
Frankly, Relbeek, I don't see this natural law tangent as offering any useful perspectives on the problem. These last few posts on the subject read like the argument of how the Babel Fish (dis)proves the existence of God. There is no natural law, absolute, inalienable right to marry...she can say no. The natural law you're thinking of is the right to refuse or consent to sex, the violation of which right is, of course, rape.
But the disconnect occurs when you try to confuse the issue of sex with the issue of marriage. The reason gays want marriage is not for sex. They can do that just fine in the privacy of their own bedrooms. They can move in together, they can arrange their lives however they like. The practical thing they want out of a civil union or marriage contract is the "you are legally the same person in two bodies" aspect of marriage, where all property is entailed, you are automatically assumed to be each others' heirs, you have power of attorney for each other, etc...
A civil union would give them all the same applicable legal rights and obligations as a common law marriage, so the only reason I can see for turning such a compromise down would be a hissy fit over not having to decide which guy got to wear the white dress, and not having as good an excuse to throw an expensive party.
Kinda ironic that in this day and age of divorce, hetero couples are using prenuptial agreements to limit the same contractual aspects of marriage that gays are fighting so fiercely to attain...
First off, I think you are very close to right Eidolon, but not totally there. I too think that the government needs to get out of the marriage business. It should only grant civil unions -- whether to gay or straight couples is immaterial. If people want to call themselves married that is a religious and/or social issue not something for governments. The big reason that many gay marriage proponents are hesitant to let it stand at civil unions is the whole "seperate but equal" thing. If we have two seperate civil institutions, it becomes very simple to disenfranchise a group by granting married folks rights that civil unionized folks don't get. I find it very odd that in re marriage you encourage a halfway stop gap law, whilst on the issue of campaign finance you promote a "do it perfect or its horrible" point of view. I would be fine with gays being given civil unions if laws were put in place retroactivley changing marriage to civil union in all legal respects.
But noone is restricting thier freedom of association. They are free to marry in the non-legal sense. They are free to merely live together indefinately, if that is what they perfer. The right to marry is not the right of association.
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
vaulos wrote:But noone is restricting thier freedom of association. They are free to marry in the non-legal sense. They are free to merely live together indefinately, if that is what they perfer. The right to marry is not the right of association.
Sure, their freedom of association is being restricted. They are taxed more because they do not have a legal way to be married to their partner. They are unable to partake in a number of things because of lack of a legal status between them (visitation rights, for one). These are tangible benefits to marriage that are denied because of their status as a protected class.
Freedom of association. Two people who want to unite their lives should have the right to.
Just two people? Is that where you draw your own line in your definition? Shouldn't it simply be "People who want to unite their lives should have the right to"? If, as you say, it's as simple as freedom of association, then what's the problem with polygamy? What twelve consenting adults do amongst themselves harms noone, right? Shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same protections as married couples? I put it to you that any advocate of gay marriage that opposes group marriage is a hypocrite, and by your own definition a bigot.
My point here is that changing the definition of marriage to suit yourself is central to this issue. Do you have the right to take someone else's creation, alter it to make it your own, then turn aound and force them to accept it as if it were the same? I do not believe so.
I would be fine with gays being given civil unions if laws were put in place retroactivley changing marriage to civil union in all legal respects.
This is an unnecessarily loaded statement since marriage in a legal sense is already a kind of civil union with extra baggage that's relevant only spiritually. So in legally abolishing marriage all you'd materially be changing anyway would be language, at the cost of a backlash of--forgive me--biblical proportions.
This and the reasoning I cited above to Relbeek is why I think it would be more constructive to craft legislation to ensure that a "civil union" by name is granted legal rights identical to marriage in all respects. There could still be some differences in cases like insurance where rates are determined by realistic risk group analysis rather than abstract ideal, but on the whole the two would be flip sides of the same coin sharing the same substance but with different faces.
My point here is that changing the definition of marriage to suit yourself is central to this issue. Do you have the right to take someone else's creation, alter it to make it your own, then turn aound and force them to accept it as if it were the same? I do not believe so.
I frankly have no problems with polygamy either, Riggen, (assuming consent of all persons involved), so you're barking up the wrong tree. However, I do see logistical entanglements involved there.
And let's make this clear: Marriage has had a NUMBER of different definitions over the years. Polygamy, for example, was and is de rigeur in much of the world. Marriage in other parts of the world was nothing more than a political or economic arrangement, sometimes nothing more than a purchase of a woman as chattel from her father. Am I concerned about using a definition of marriage that involves two people who love each other committing their lives to one another? Hell no.
I'm opposed to making two different legal statuses - civil unions and marriages - simply because history has shown that "separate but equal" is a farce, a lie. Separate is inherently unequal.
Partha- You are confusing benefits and restrictions. i.e., carrot and the stick. There are lots of carrots for marrying, but there is no stick in not marrying. There is no restriction; no loss of freedom. What is lost are tangental benefits.
Keep in mind, I'm not against gay unions. In fact, I've stated several times on this board that I'm against marriages in general, and for unions in general. But, I think that you all are resting it upon an improper basis. Church and state is the issue, not equality under the law.
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
I frankly have no problems with polygamy either, Riggen, (assuming consent of all persons involved), so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Not really. See, the point was more about changing the definition of marriage more than polygamy per se. Many supporters of gay marriage have a problem with polygamy, and I think that reflects a lack of consideration for the consequences of tampering with people's cherished institutions. Even you reflexively spoke of "two people" rather than just "people."
And let's make this clear: Marriage has had a NUMBER of different definitions over the years.
Never an issue. Though it may be precedent setting, any changes made to US law will hold no actual force in other parts of the world. The problem is not with changing the definition itself, but with forcing that change upon others. Call it social trademark infringement.
I'm opposed to making two different legal statuses - civil unions and marriages - simply because history has shown that "separate but equal" is a farce, a lie. Separate is inherently unequal.
What I suggest is a single legal status addressable by multiple names. That's not the same thing as separate but equal. In any event, I don't think it's valid to equate things with physical presence like schools or drinking fountains or bus seats to abstract entities of social, spiritual, and legal artifice like marriage or civil unions.
My brother and his boyfriend are getting "married" in spring 2006. They announced it today, at our family's Christmas get-together.
They are being wed in ceremony by a church that accepts them as members. They are doing this regardless of what the family thinks, regardless of what the governement thinks, regardless of how many people will or won't see them as married.
Once the ceremony occurs, they will take papers to their lawyers in an effort to make sure that the few legal arrangements that they can grant each other are taken care of, though it is my understanding that there is only so much they can grant each other with legal paperwork....Thankfully, they both come from families who will make sure that, if something horrible happens, no one is gonna try to screw them out of the same "inheritances" that we straight folks would get if our spouses passed away or were incapacitated.
We are quibbling about a word....a word that is no more or less there when it's not spoken out loud. These two guys are getting MARRIED, whether outsiders agree with it, or recognize it or not. They are doing this as an affirmation to each other than they're sticking together, come what may, in sickness and in health, yada yada, and they don't get any of the benefits of being "married" in government eyes.
Riggen and Eidolon: I agree with a lot of what you guys have said...I think that it was a mistake for the gay movement to press issue on account of a word, when a concept would have sufficed. I think that defending "marriage" isn't, as a whole, a reprehensible offense. BUT, I also wonder at the large number of members of the gay community being willing to be "married" in the eyes of thier gods, knowing damn well that they don't get the benefits that go along with with title, and that a fair amount of populace doesn't even recognize that union as legit...and yet they're still willing and able, in several churches, to "marry".
Voting against a recognition of "gay marriages" isn't stopping them from doing so. Not allowing homosexuals legal "marriage" rights isn't stopping them from being "married"...why the adamance that they can't be "married" when, quite frankly, THEY'RE GETTING "MARRIED" NOW, with or without the approval of the country, just without the legal benefits of being so joined?
