Here we go again (gay marriage)

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 9:55 am

If they usually go Republican, why did Kerry get the edge?

And now, you're really making a lot of assumptions to back your theory. Can youprovide any data to support the notion that 1) Overall circulation leans Republican, 2) Editors have historically backed republican candidates in leelctions, going back to LBJ (I think you'll find Kennedy throws a monkey wrench in that theory)?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:01 am

Nope, Nixon got more endorsements than Kennedy in 1960.

Like I said, my source is Editor&Publisher magazine.

Why did Kerry get the edge in '04 despite papers usually leaning Republican? That's a very good question. But given history, the answer is definitely not "Because the media are liberal."

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:02 am

Is that source linkable?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:05 am

No, sadly. Closest I can find is a Salon article citing E&P. Maybe someone else can find a primary link.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:02 am

But given history, the answer is definitely not "Because the media are liberal."

However that logic does not disprove the assertion that the MSM is liberal.

Riggen · Post by **Riggen** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:14 am

Jarochai Alabaster wrote:Riggen,

I went back and read your link. I fail to see your point. Unmarried people want the same benefits for their partners that married people recieve? Um...logic has appearantly escaped them entirely. Seriously, that's just plain idiotic. They're asking for the availability of benefits...that are already available to them.

You're employing precisely the same kind of logic that states that there is no discrimination with regard to marriage against gays because they are just free as anyone else to go out and get married to a heterosexual partner as anyone else. It doesn't suit a proponent of gay marriage.

There has to be some form of government involvement, program or document for benefits to be given. That government document is called a mairrage liscence. Do they want something else?

It doesn't have to be a marriage license. A simple form designating a partner for bookkeeping purposes would do just fine. I would think this obvious.

What, exactly, are they asking for?

Simple. Most of the same things that gays are asking for.

Can we have a home of 10+ spanning 3-4 generations all filing their taxes together?

This sounds remarkably like the "should we allow polygamists to marry" argument coming from an opponent to gay marriage. The irony looms large.

Estate taxes are state issues, correct?

And state issues are exempt from discriminatory protections? I don't think so. Naturally, I'm sure regulations vary under the current system, but that's not really at issue.

These are issues with the workplace. I fail to see what the government can do about it.

The same things they do now with employment discrimination issues.

Who ever said the insurance companies were anything but money grubbing assholes? Auto insurance is a scam, and a legally required one at that. It sucks, but again, what can the government do about it? Are they going to come in and tell the companies how to run their business?

This sounds disingenuous. The government already does a LOT to tell companies how to run their business, particularly in regard to discriminatory practices.

Isn't this more of an argument for national government health coverage than anything else?

No.

...So? Who do they want it to go to? Their kids? Siblings? Friends?

Any beneficiary they designate.

Um, not quite. Singles aren't paying a surcharge. Groups get a benefit. It's a pretty elementary business tactic, in line with the "buy one, get the second at half price" tactic. And again, what is the government going to do about it one way or the other?

I don't agree with everything in the article, and this is one of the things that I think is a little silly. Group rates are fine. And to my knowledge, travel agencies don't care whether you're travelling with your boy/girlfriend, spouse, or even a complete stranger. This is as it should be.

The rest of it is out of the government's hands, so it really doesn't apply in the least.

Enforcing antidiscrimination law is well within the government's purview.

And I still fail to see why these issues must be addressed before, and only before any other change to the system. The changes you're looking toward can be implimented at any time before, during, or after the changes I'm looking for. They're also a completely seperate issue.

I disagree, the issues are integral to one another. Marriage is a cracked foundation. You don't build on a cracked foundation. You patch it up and THEN build on it, because if you don't you leave some part of your house unsupported.

Also, judging from your reaction I believe that once the gay movement gets what it wants it will be loathe to support a more radical reform of the rights it worked so hard to gain. They will then be among the "haves" on the other side of the issue.

You do realize that there are many rights and protections involved with mairrage that simply can't be given to a single person, right?

They can if some mechanism for mutual partner designation outside of marriage is enacted. Why should anyone care if those rights are granted at my discretion to my wife, girlfriend, step-sister, or even just a friend?

Are you saying we should do away with mairrage as a government program entirely, because that's really the only end I see to your way of thinking here.

Not at all. I'm just saying we should do away with marriage as a benchmark for the establishment of rights. Just take sex out of the equation.

You feel we should all have the same protections, but I think you're asking for a complete overhaul of the system. I'm really not sure what end you envision.

Simple. Prohibit discrimination based on marital status and create the mechanism for people to take advantage of rights involving a freely designatable partner. Not an overhaul. Just a realignment.

Riggen · Post by **Riggen** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:18 am

Oh and Jarochai, before you reply, consider that the vast majority of cohabitating gays are "single" under the law.

Jarochai Alabaster · Post by **Jarochai Alabaster** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:05 pm

You're employing precisely the same kind of logic that states that there is no discrimination with regard to marriage against gays because they are just free as anyone else to go out and get married to a heterosexual partner as anyone else. It doesn't suit a proponent of gay marriage.

No, actually I'm not. Single people asking for the benefits provided to couples is not the same as one type of couple asking for the benefits others already have available.

It doesn't have to be a marriage license. A simple form designating a partner for bookkeeping purposes would do just fine. I would think this obvious.

Are you suggesting we replace the mairrage liscence with this form, or create something new to go alongside the mairrage liscence? If the former, do you feel there should be something on the document to specify the nature of the peoples' relationship to each other?

Simple. Most of the same things that gays are asking for.

Not really. Gays are asking for the right to marry. The people in the article are not interested in mairrage.

This sounds remarkably like the "should we allow polygamists to marry" argument coming from an opponent to gay marriage. The irony looms large.

It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Don't think that because I'm initially skeptical (And uncertain of what exactly they're after) I'm not interested in hearing more. Clarification is key.

And state issues are exempt from discriminatory protections? I don't think so. Naturally, I'm sure regulations vary under the current system, but that's not really at issue.

I asked because I have no idea how property taxes work. I certainly wasn't implying that states were exempt from discrimination. But for example, I've heard Florida has no property tax in the first place. I'm simply seeking more information about how this would pan out.

The same things they do now with employment discrimination issues.

Asking someone to work a shift isn't discrimination. Forcing someone to work a shift based on their family status is already illegal as far as I know. Problem is, I would assume it would be hard to prove.

This sounds disingenuous. The government already does a LOT to tell companies how to run their business, particularly in regard to discriminatory practices.

Then why does the government allow insurance companies to charge men higher rates than women?

No.

That's what it sounds like to me. I'm all for government distributed healthcare. That would mean everyone, regardless of family or current health status would have equal and fair care. ...In theory that is. =p

Any beneficiary they designate.

Sounds good to me. Fits in quite nicely with Bush's proposed changes to SS, too. Only problem is, with the current state of SS I think that program needs to be fixed before it's interaction with mairrage is messed with. Otherwise, designating any beneficiary of your choice will never gain substantial support.

I disagree, the issues are integral to one another. Marriage is a cracked foundation. You don't build on a cracked foundation. You patch it up and THEN build on it, because if you don't you leave some part of your house unsupported.

Also, judging from your reaction I believe that once the gay movement gets what it wants it will be loathe to support a more radical reform of the rights it worked so hard to gain. They will then be among the "haves" on the other side of the issue.

I disagree with the first paragraph. I don't particularly view mairrage itself as cracked, and the house analogy is pretty flawed, but I see what you're getting at. As for the second paragraph, you have grossly misjudged me. I may not speak for every other fag or dyke out there, but I would welcome and support any change to any system that I thought would be an improvement.

They can if some mechanism for mutual partner designation outside of marriage is enacted. Why should anyone care if those rights are granted at my discretion to my wife, girlfriend, step-sister, or even just a friend?

Point taken.

Not at all. I'm just saying we should do away with marriage as a benchmark for the establishment of rights. Just take sex out of the equation.

I assume you mean sex as in fucking?

Simple. Prohibit discrimination based on marital status and create the mechanism for people to take advantage of rights involving a freely designatable partner. Not an overhaul. Just a realignment.

I definitely see it as more of an overhaul than a realignment, but I suppose that's just semantics.

Oh and Jarochai, before you reply, consider that the vast majority of cohabitating gays are "single" under the law.

...And your point is?

Overall, I would definitely not be opposed to what you're suggesting. In fact, now that I've had some clarification and it's mulled around in my head a bit this all sounds pretty good. The biggest issue I think would be SS survivor benefits. Then again my ideal form of working SS is to abolish it entirely and let people save their own retirement money, or 100% privatize it so that all the money taken out of someone's income for SS goes into their own account in only their name. This would keep the government from "borrowing" SS money, and each person can name whoever they want as the beneficiary of the account.

Riggen · Post by **Riggen** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:06 pm

Not really. Gays are asking for the right to marry. The people in the article are not interested in mairrage.

It's been my observation that gays are asking for the right to marry not merely as an end unto itself but because of the rights that accompany marriage.

Problem is, I would assume it would be hard to prove.

Lots of things are hard to prove. But they're still illegal.

Then why does the government allow insurance companies to charge men higher rates than women?

I said they do a lot. They don't do everything.

...And your point is?

In that specific case, my point is that all of the changes I'm proposing would be of immediate benefit to gays. At a stroke it would result in them gaining all the rights pursuant to marriage with the sole exception of the official use of the term "married." ...which they could still work on with less resistance except from the religious crowd (who will never budge anyway). It sounds like a good deal to me, but then when it comes to politics I favor substance over style.

Fobbon Lazyfoot · Post by **Fobbon Lazyfoot** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:29 am

*autolmated gay marriage debate response on*

Gay marriage is a moral issue. It seems morally wrong to me to deny gay couples the right to marry under the government. If a church wants to deny it, go ahead.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:36 am

This is one of those arguments that really boggles me at times. If you can step back from what people tell you to believe (your church, your family, your favorite talk radio icon) your moral compass should really be naturally pointing towards giving people equal rights.

We all innately know - stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, lying ..cheating etc is wrong. Some do it anyway, but there is that feeling in the back of your mind - you know it's wrong. Without being told that it's wrong, I don't think homosexuality is one of those.

Tossing in marrying animals, children and objects is just obsurd. You know it, everyone else knows it.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:08 pm

"We all innately know - stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, lying ..cheating etc is wrong. Some do it anyway, but there is that feeling in the back of your mind - you know it's wrong. Without being told that it's wrong, I don't think homosexuality is one of those. "

Are you arguing that humans are born with a priori knowledge?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:11 pm

If she isn't, I will. I believe morality is something innate to all of us, at least on a basic level.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:12 pm

Kulaf wrote:"We all innately know - stealing is wrong, murder is wrong, lying ..cheating etc is wrong. Some do it anyway, but there is that feeling in the back of your mind - you know it's wrong. Without being told that it's wrong, I don't think homosexuality is one of those. "

Are you arguing that humans are born with a priori knowledge?

Yes, to a certain extent humans are born with genetically pre-programmed knowledge (or instinct, if you wil) , just like most other organisms.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:48 pm

I do not believe morality is innate. Children steal....unless you teach them not to steal they will continue. Animals do not have morals.....they do not have modesty.....to argue that we are born with morality inborn because other animals are born with insticts is a non sequitur.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:49 pm

Kulaf seems to be your typical contrary poster. It's pointless really to discuss anything with people like that. They aren't engaged and the deliveries are flaccid.

So it's pointless and generally dull.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:50 pm

Is that your way of telling me you don't know what a priori means?

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:56 pm

If you can't figure out what I am saying, well then ...you are probably that person in a group that keeps talking while others roll their eyes at each other and stifle yawns.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:00 pm

I'm just asking you to defend your position on morality. If you can't, you can't.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:07 pm

*rolls eyes*