U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:06 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,735 posts, read 5,385,845 times
Reputation: 6935

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
You edited you post to add the hypothetical after I responded. And if not from religion, where are you attitudes about the inherent nature of marriage - regardless of any civil law - coming from?



You're describing the problem of letting marriage laws discriminate against gay people. And it's something that absolutely has arisen and has wrecked great havoc in the lives of gay families. You're making the case for gay marriage by bringing up this hypothetical.

My thoughts are this: any marriage or marriage-type law in the US that bans homosexuals is unconstitutional. If a state decides to have a marriage law (which all 50 do), then that state cannot constitutionally say that heterosexuals can access the law but homosexuals can't.
So whether or not something is legal is not really the important point to you; you only use that argument when it's convenient. What is important is that you get your way. Thank you for clarifying your position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:07 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,106,541 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
The answer is for for the government to not recognize religious "marriage" . It is simply a proxy for the legal contract it now represents.

Each state should have its own laws regarding legal partnership contracts. If a couple chooses to also make a vow to God in a church, that is independent of their legal contract. The church should have the right to marry who they want to marry. Gays want acceptance into an organization that doesn't want them.
Huh? Your "answer" is exactly what the situation today is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,125 posts, read 21,907,761 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Huh? Did you not read my post? Equality and equal treatment under the law is exactly what I'm interested in.
No, it isn't and that is clear from your posts.

You already have the equality that you supposedly seek - what you want are special rights.

I have proposed many times that government get out of the marriage business, that there be only civil contracts of committment, enforceable by the courts. Anyone can call themselves "married" but the word itself would have no legal meaning, and special benefits would not accrue to any joined couple.

You have consistently rejected this proposal, because it is clear that you want the "goodies", not equality.

My proposal would provide equality - but the homosexual movement wants more - legitamacy and forced acceptance of their chosen lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:13 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,106,541 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
So whether or not something is legal is not really the important point to you; you only use that argument when it's convenient. What is important is that you get your way. Thank you for clarifying your position.
I don't understand your post here. How am I not concerned with the legality of gay marriage and I only use it as a convenient argument when I want to get my way?

What I want if for gay people to be treated equally under our laws - something required by the Constitution mind you. That holds for all laws: driving laws, military service laws, murder laws, and, yes, marriage laws.

If Colorado has a marriage law, then I want that law to be accessible by gay people. Just like if Colorado has a law governing the licensing of drivers who wish to use the public roadway, then I want that law to be accessible by gay people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,125 posts, read 21,907,761 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Huh? Your "answer" is exactly what the situation today is.
No it isn't.

Government sanctions marriage today - TJ is proposing that the government not be involved in marriage except for upholding contracts within the court system.

If the situation were like that today, you wouldn't be asking that state governments recognize gay marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:17 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,106,541 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
I have proposed many times that government get out of the marriage business, that there be only civil contracts of committment, enforceable by the courts. Anyone can call themselves "married" but the word itself would have no legal meaning, and special benefits would not accrue to any joined couple
And I'll address your suggestion again. First, we already have civil contracts of commitment enforceable by the courts. They are called civil marriages.

Second, this part of you post makes no sense: "special benefits would not accrue to any joined couple." If your civil contracts confer no benefits, then what they hell do your civil contracts do? I seems to me you're suggesting we create civil contracts of commitment that do absolutely nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:20 PM
 
4,839 posts, read 3,545,731 times
Reputation: 1834
Oh please. Those who are against gay marriage are discriminatory hateful folks, plain & simple. No amount of attempts to explain it with the bible & definitions of marriage can change that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,125 posts, read 21,907,761 times
Reputation: 6128
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
And I'll address your suggestion again. First, we already have civil contracts of commitment enforceable by the courts. They are called civil marriages.

Second, this part of you post makes no sense: "special benefits would not accrue to any joined couple." If your civil contracts confer no benefits, then what they hell do your civil contracts do? I seems to me you're suggesting we create civil contracts of commitment that do absolutely nothing.
This is because you don't understand what the purpose of marriage is - and lends credence to my previous assertion that you see this in terms of benefits rather than equality.

Marriage was intended to join a man and a woman together for the purpose of providing the foundation for a family. Since the family is the foundation of society, it is important that it be stable - and thus an element of committment must be in place for the family to remain intact. Hence - marriage. The married couple vowed to commit to each other for a lifetime.

Society has trashed the concept of family, redefined it, and accepted anti-family behaviors such as pre-marital and extra-marital sex, no fault divorce, prosecuted a misguided drug war that has made many single parents, and embraced "alternative" family structures.

My proposal is simply an acknowledgement of this change in values and a compromise that allows everyone to commit civilly without having to argue over the definition of marriage.

The contract does not have to "do anything" in order to be valid - it is a contract of commitment and that is enough. Like any other contract, reasonable terms can be agreed upon, and if for example, you wanted to include language that distributed property, that could be done.

What exactly is it that you want the contract to "do" that can't be done without government sanction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:35 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
4,735 posts, read 5,385,845 times
Reputation: 6935
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I don't understand your post here. How am I not concerned with the legality of gay marriage and I only use it as a convenient argument when I want to get my way?
In this post, the important issue was what the law allowed:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
What?

If marriage law allows for couples of the same sex to contract a marriage, then when they file for a civil marriage, they are legally married. Period.
However, in my hypothetical situation where gay parents were defined by the law to not be parents, you refused to address whether they would in actuality BE parents to their children. The obvious answer was that of course they would continue to be parents regardless of whether the law said they were or not. They are what they are, not was the law says they are. The same is true of marriage. Marriage is what it is, not what the laws defines to be. The law, to this point, has merely codified what was. Now you are trying to use it to change what marriage means, but you can't because things are what they are, not just what you call them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2013, 12:49 PM
 
14,920 posts, read 11,106,541 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
In this post, the important issue was what the law allowed:



However, in my hypothetical situation where gay parents were defined by the law to not be parents, you refused to address whether they would in actuality BE parents to their children. The obvious answer was that of course they would continue to be parents regardless of whether the law said they were or not. They are what they are, not was the law says they are. The same is true of marriage. Marriage is what it is, not what the laws defines to be. The law, to this point, has merely codified what was. Now you are trying to use it to change what marriage means, but you can't because things are what they are, not just what you call them.
Here you go again conflating religious or otherwise traditional marriages with civil marriages (and I wholeheartedly disagree with the second sentence I bolded and underlined - that describes a theocracy).

The "gay marriage" debate in the US is over civil marriage within the law. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about about whatever marriage means to you in your particular religious or cultural tradition. I'm not talking about some sort of unchanging throughout the eons "Marriage is what it is" concept. I'm talking about a civil, secular, legal contract that forms joint legal entities of two people and confers to them a collection of rights and responsibilities that just so happens to be called "marriage" within our laws. That kind of marriage is whatever we decide it to be. It can be changed at anytime, even up to the point of being gotten rid of.

And sure, the gay parents from your hypothetical would still BE the parents of the kids regardless of whether their jurisdiction provides them with the legal benefits and responsibilities it provides to heterosexual parents. I was simply pointing out that your discriminatory hypothetical is a perfect illustration of why gay couples should have equal access to marriage law.

Last edited by hammertime33; 03-10-2013 at 01:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top