(03-30-2013 04:34 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 04:16 PM)Paul M Wrote:  gays also like young boys. But gays don't want "gay" used by the pedophiles. They're both gay, why two different terms? Gay conveys that a man is attracted to males. Is it irrelevant if we go astray assuming he only mean adults?

Dude, really? There are straight guys that molest little girls. I really don't think gay=pedophile is conducive. None of my gay friends like little boys. 18-20 year old boys? Well, I guess some they find attractive, but all you have to do is Go to the babes section and you'll see a lot of 18-20 year old chicks I find attractive. And I'm no damn pedophile.

Like math, if less than 20 (or in my case, 30) just do them in your head

(03-30-2013 07:17 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  Your previous comments sound more like you're upset with teh gheys taking "your word". But you end up with it being the govt. fault. I assume both could be correct inferences about your opinion, but what can anyone do to stop a group from taking a word under their wing? "Choice" has been taken by abortion advocates. "Equality" by a AA supporters. "Fiscal Responsibility" by Republicans. etc.

Just making a comment. That's all.

Thanks. That's why I came back with the clarification.

I'm not mad that gays want to be "married"... and before I saw where it could go, I didn't have a problem with the government using "married" as a descriptor. Now that I see that gays have the right to be in a union, and traditions matter and the word certainly predates the Constitution and always refers to a union between a man and woman, I think the government should admit a simple and unintentional consequence from their adoption of the word and fix it.

(03-30-2013 07:32 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:28 PM)jh Wrote:  I suspect that the most important features of marriage are the love and commitment of two people and their decision to spend the rest of their lives together (we'll just pretend the divorce rate isn't so high).

Why only two?

Quote:And I see no reason why the gender of the participants is at all relevant to this commitment.

Why is the gender irrelevant but the number involved relevant?

While I think two people is slightly more relevant, it's not really all that important. It's much easier to believe that two people are committed to each other than three. The more people involved in any situation the more complicated it becomes. I was just thinking back on the marriages I've seen and what is important in those, and all of those have involved two people. Plus this discussion has been about gay marriage, not plural ones. If you want to argue that marriages should go back to the Biblical days that's fine by me. I have to say I agree with Jim though, not sure Solomon was all that wise.

(03-30-2013 07:44 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:28 PM)jh Wrote:  The reason there is a word for pedophiles, which distinguishes them from every other sexual orientation, is because by far the most important feature of the relationship is the age of the victim. The relative sexes is almost entirely irrelevant.

so pedophiles can have a word that distinguishes them but straight people who are married can't?
When I say I'm married I don't want guesses made as to who, how many, or what ever. Why can't straight people enjoy their own distinction?

Yes, that's just what happened. Pedophiles were upset that they didn't have their own word. It made forming their clubs too difficult because all these straight people kept showing up.

Straight people do have their own distinction. It's called straight.

(03-30-2013 08:40 PM)jh Wrote:  While I think two people is slightly more relevant, it's not really all that important. It's much easier to believe that two people are committed to each other than three. The more people involved in any situation the more complicated it becomes. I was just thinking back on the marriages I've seen and what is important in those, and all of those have involved two people. Plus this discussion has been about gay marriage, not plural ones. If you want to argue that marriages should go back to the Biblical days that's fine by me. I have to say I agree with Jim though, not sure Solomon was all that wise.

My point was to understand why, when you laid out what made a "marriage" you chose to say it was 2 people. You gave two specific criteria. One was that there be love. The second that it be two people, sex of the two being irrelevant. Clearly by your explanation above you believe that limiting it to two people holds some value. I was wondering why the number of people involved was more relevant to you than the sex of the two.

I wasn't arguing for polygamy, I was making the point if we are going to get into the practice of redefining what marriage is then how do we gain acceptance of one? I've never understood why people don't see any value in the slippery slope argument when it cuts to the heart of what is going on.

(03-30-2013 08:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Like math, if less than 20 (or in my case, 30) just do them in your head

Much Jimmy Carter, that's something I just can't do. I'm sure you can't, either, and just tossed that out there for discussions sake.

(03-30-2013 08:50 PM)jh Wrote:  Straight people do have their own distinction. It's called straight.

and the term for a straight man/woman union would be? For centuries the term was marriage.

Look, gays came up with their own way of describing themselves and, as Paul and I have previously mentioned, Im sure at least one of them is intelligent enough to coin a new phrase.

If gays can call their unions marriage it might stress me enough to be suicidal and according to Tom I need to be accomodated at the expense and inconvenience of the entire population of the country.

(03-30-2013 08:51 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:40 PM)jh Wrote:  While I think two people is slightly more relevant, it's not really all that important. It's much easier to believe that two people are committed to each other than three. The more people involved in any situation the more complicated it becomes. I was just thinking back on the marriages I've seen and what is important in those, and all of those have involved two people. Plus this discussion has been about gay marriage, not plural ones. If you want to argue that marriages should go back to the Biblical days that's fine by me. I have to say I agree with Jim though, not sure Solomon was all that wise.

My point was to understand why, when you laid out what made a "marriage" you chose to say it was 2 people. You gave two specific criteria. One was that there be love. The second that it be two people, sex of the two being irrelevant. Clearly by your explanation above you believe that limiting it to two people holds some value. I was wondering why the number of people involved was more relevant to you than the sex of the two.
I wasn't arguing for polygamy, I was making the point if we are going to get into the practice of redefining what marriage is then how do we gain acceptance of one? I've never understood why people don't see any value in the slippery slope argument when it cuts to the heart of what is going on.

Limiting it to two people makes it easier for me to believe that the other two conditions (love and commitment) are actually present for all of the parties involved. The presence of love and commitment is what keeps a marriage from being a sham. Now some of that is undoubtedly my lack of familiarity with plural relationships. Their genders don't affect that evaluation at all.

I was a little too flip in my response. I agree that slippery slope arguments are often valid and this is not an unreasonable example. I'm just not afraid of what's at the bottom of slope. The definition of marriage has evolved over time and will continue to do so.

(03-30-2013 09:05 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Like math, if less than 20 (or in my case, 30) just do them in your head

Much Jimmy Carter, that's something I just can't do. I'm sure you can't, either, and just tossed that out there for discussions sake.

As i get older, the math gets more complicated, if you follow me... lol

(03-30-2013 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:50 PM)jh Wrote:  Straight people do have their own distinction. It's called straight.

and the term for a straight man/woman union would be? For centuries the term was marriage.
Look, gays came up with their own way of describing themselves and, as Paul and I have previously mentioned, Im sure at least one of them is intelligent enough to coin a new phrase.
If gays can call their unions marriage it might stress me enough to be suicidal and according to Tom I need to be accomodated at the expense and inconvenience of the entire population of the country.

I'm assuming you will still be able to call yourself married. I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to stop that.

Why bother coming up with a new term when married works perfectly fine?

Because I care. http://www.suicidehotlines.com/

jh

The problem with expanding the definition is that you are giving special rights to people based on this word. 50 years ago, I doubt anyone envisioned that "gays" would be asking for these special rights. Can you blame them? 50 years from now, you have no idea what OTHER "union" will be before the courts asking for this same special treatment and claiming (correctly) that they are being denied equal treatment because they aren't considered "special" by the government.

I agree that married straights shouldn't be given special treatment over married gays or any other people... which means we should eliminate the special treatment for being "married", whether gay or straight... as opposed to continuing to treat SOME citizens better than others

If white couples were given special treatment because they were white couples, you'd understand why black couples would want the same treatment... and then Asian or Latin couples and then mixed couples of all varieties... How about if aliens visit... will we go ahead and oppress people who marry aliens until they get "strong" enough to challenge the law themselves? Would the answer be to keep expanding the list of "preferred" couples, or to eliminate the "special" treatment for any of them, and make ALL races equal in one action... both the ones we know of, as well as the ones we can't yet imagine..

(03-30-2013 10:27 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  jh
The problem with expanding the definition is that you are giving special rights to people based on this word. 50 years ago, I doubt anyone envisioned that "gays" would be asking for these special rights. Can you blame them? 50 years from now, you have no idea what OTHER "union" will be before the courts asking for this same special treatment and claiming (correctly) that they are being denied equal treatment because they aren't considered "special" by the government.
I agree that married straights shouldn't be given special treatment over married gays or any other people... which means we should eliminate the special treatment for being "married", whether gay or straight... as opposed to continuing to treat SOME citizens better than others
If white couples were given special treatment because they were white couples, you'd understand why black couples would want the same treatment... and then Asian or Latin couples and then mixed couples of all varieties... How about if aliens visit... will we go ahead and oppress people who marry aliens until they get "strong" enough to challenge the law themselves? Would the answer be to keep expanding the list of "preferred" couples, or to eliminate the "special" treatment for any of them, and make ALL races equal in one action... both the ones we know of, as well as the ones we can't yet imagine..

I think the civil institution of marriage provides a valuable and important function in our society. There are over 1,000 different rights and responsibilities associated with marriage included in the US Code. Granted, not all of those make sense (and those could rightfully be eliminated), but many do. If the options are between eliminating it completely and expanding it piecemeal, I say we keep it. Our laws have never been perfect and they never will be, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And if the aliens come here, I'm not sure it's going to be up to us to decide who gets married anymore.

I think it does as well, jh.... but do we really want the government deciding that being married is "better" than just living together? Why do you have to be "married" to provide a good family home? What if two widows or widowers decide to live together to provide a better home for their families, but don't wish to be "married"... except that the government encourages them to do so?

Sorry, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am. The fact that there are 1000 rights and responsibilities means nothing if they do not offer equal protection, and they don't. It may be a mess, but it is still "right".

(03-30-2013 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:50 PM)jh Wrote:  Straight people do have their own distinction. It's called straight.

and the term for a straight man/woman union would be? For centuries the term was marriage.

Look, gays came up with their own way of describing themselves and, as Paul and I have previously mentioned, Im sure at least one of them is intelligent enough to coin a new phrase.

If gays can call their unions marriage it might stress me enough to be suicidal and according to Tom I need to be accomodated at the expense and inconvenience of the entire population of the country.

I have to wonder if this is truly the outcome that defenders of the definition of marriage really want. Over time, society will just use the generic term that incorporates both heterosexual and homosexual unions because it will get too cumbersome to say 'married or [new term]ed' whenever you don't care which type of union it is (or you don't know the orientation of the person with whom you are speaking and do not want to make a social faux pas). My guess is that it would take under a decade for pretty much everything official to stop referencing 'spouses' and start asking about 'partners.' Eventually, I could see the word marriage falling into the same category as 'policeman' or 'fireman.'

Personally, I don't care, but I have not really seen much discussion on whether by defending the definition of marriage and holding it static, one isn't putting it at risk of becoming obsolete. For those that defend the current definition, is this an acceptable result, or do you have a reason to believe that people will still use the term marriage as often in the future as it is used today?

(03-31-2013 12:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it does as well, jh.... but do we really want the government deciding that being married is "better" than just living together? Why do you have to be "married" to provide a good family home? What if two widows or widowers decide to live together to provide a better home for their families, but don't wish to be "married"... except that the government encourages them to do so?
Sorry, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am. The fact that there are 1000 rights and responsibilities means nothing if they do not offer equal protection, and they don't. It may be a mess, but it is still "right".

I'm sympathetic to your thoughts, but if you thought those advocating for gay marriage are vilified for trying to destroy traditional marriage, just wait until the traditionalists hear you. Incorporating gay marriage is much more realistic than destroying civil marriage altogether.

But also, I like the idea of spouses not being able to be forced to testify against each other. I don't think it's an equal protection problem that roommates can be. I like the idea that a child born to a married couple is presumed to belong to both and that doesn't work without a formal relationship (and it doesn't bother me that the presumption could involve Heather having two mommies). I like that property is presumed to transfer to the other upon death (you aren't an estate lawyer trying to drum up additional business are you? I kid, of course). I don't see an equal protection problem with these kinds of provisions. They take advantage of an existing relationship to simplify the orderly administration of the law and without the existing relationship would be incoherent.

I'm not sure I understand the issue with your widow example. If they want to live together but don't want to be married, I certainly don't think anyone should stop them (and I understand that's not what you are arguing). But then they forgo the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. They have made that choice, and if they later change their minds they are free to choose differently.

Marriage is a creature of state law, a contractual relationship between two (for now Ninerfan1) people that includes certain rights and responsibilities. In many respects it's a form contract, with most of the provisions already filled in, but a contract nonetheless. It's one way people can choose to order their lives, but not the only way. I haven't thought this all the way through, but it's similar to incorporating a organization. There are a number of ways to organize a corporation and all come with a different suite of rights and responsibilities. There is no equal protection problem if you choose one form and don't get the benefits of a different form. Perhaps there should be additional forms of personal organization, something that would include your widows without forcing them to marry, but that doesn't require we get rid of civil marriage.

And I hope all y'all remember where you hid all the eggs (or if not, that the ones you forgot are all outside).

(03-31-2013 12:31 AM)rice09 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:50 PM)jh Wrote:  Straight people do have their own distinction. It's called straight.

and the term for a straight man/woman union would be? For centuries the term was marriage.

Look, gays came up with their own way of describing themselves and, as Paul and I have previously mentioned, Im sure at least one of them is intelligent enough to coin a new phrase.

If gays can call their unions marriage it might stress me enough to be suicidal and according to Tom I need to be accomodated at the expense and inconvenience of the entire population of the country.

I have to wonder if this is truly the outcome that defenders of the definition of marriage really want. Over time, society will just use the generic term that incorporates both heterosexual and homosexual unions because it will get too cumbersome to say 'married or [new term]ed' whenever you don't care which type of union it is (or you don't know the orientation of the person with whom you are speaking and do not want to make a social faux pas). My guess is that it would take under a decade for pretty much everything official to stop referencing 'spouses' and start asking about 'partners.' Eventually, I could see the word marriage falling into the same category as 'policeman' or 'fireman.'

Personally, I don't care, but I have not really seen much discussion on whether by defending the definition of marriage and holding it static, one isn't putting it at risk of becoming obsolete. For those that defend the current definition, is this an acceptable result, or do you have a reason to believe that people will still use the term marriage as often in the future as it is used today?

I think the term marriage would be more of a religious demarcation than a secular one. Some gays would be married, some would not. Some hetero would be married, some not. Like being baptized or "saved". "MARRIED" would mean what it originally meant... to be a couple in a union sanctified by whatever "god" you worship.

(03-31-2013 09:01 AM)jh Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 12:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it does as well, jh.... but do we really want the government deciding that being married is "better" than just living together? Why do you have to be "married" to provide a good family home? What if two widows or widowers decide to live together to provide a better home for their families, but don't wish to be "married"... except that the government encourages them to do so?
Sorry, but the more I think about it, the more convinced I am. The fact that there are 1000 rights and responsibilities means nothing if they do not offer equal protection, and they don't. It may be a mess, but it is still "right".

I'm sympathetic to your thoughts, but if you thought those advocating for gay marriage are vilified for trying to destroy traditional marriage, just wait until the traditionalists hear you. Incorporating gay marriage is much more realistic than destroying civil marriage altogether.

I don't believe people of faith don't really put much stock in having the state classify them as "married". If their faith is that important to them, then they don't really care what the state calls them, so long as they are "legal" in the eyes of the state... sort of like Godparents. No legal standing, but an important religious one. If the state codified the rights and duties of a Godparent, wouldn't others want those same rights?

Quote:But also, I like the idea of spouses not being able to be forced to testify against each other. I don't think it's an equal protection problem that roommates can be. I like the idea that a child born to a married couple is presumed to belong to both and that doesn't work without a formal relationship (and it doesn't bother me that the presumption could involve Heather having two mommies). I like that property is presumed to transfer to the other upon death (you aren't an estate lawyer trying to drum up additional business are you? I kid, of course). I don't see an equal protection problem with these kinds of provisions. They take advantage of an existing relationship to simplify the orderly administration of the law and without the existing relationship would be incoherent.

When you get married, you file paperwork with the state that codifies all that you have mentioned. What difference does it make if we call it a marriage or a union? It's still different from a roommate. You don't see a difference in equal protection between allowing someone to choose to pass their assets to their 3rd wife whom they've known for 5 years tax free, or to the "family friend" or even sister or aunt who has taken care of the family for a generation?

Quote:I'm not sure I understand the issue with your widow example. If they want to live together but don't want to be married, I certainly don't think anyone should stop them (and I understand that's not what you are arguing). But then they forgo the rights and responsibilities that come with marriage. They have made that choice, and if they later change their minds they are free to choose differently.

But what if they can't? WHat i mean is, what if your relationship isn't based on sex and marriage and procreation whatsoever? WHy should you have to be willing to, or be assumed to, have sex with your "partner" in order to have them make life decisions for you or to share your assets or whatever? Why can't you just choose to have them be your "partner" in the "traditional" sense of the word, and enjoy the same tax treatment that partners who share a bed do?

Quote:Marriage is a creature of state law, a contractual relationship between two (for now Ninerfan1) people that includes certain rights and responsibilities. In many respects it's a form contract, with most of the provisions already filled in, but a contract nonetheless. It's one way people can choose to order their lives, but not the only way. I haven't thought this all the way through, but it's similar to incorporating a organization. There are a number of ways to organize a corporation and all come with a different suite of rights and responsibilities. There is no equal protection problem if you choose one form and don't get the benefits of a different form. Perhaps there should be additional forms of personal organization, something that would include your widows without forcing them to marry, but that doesn't require we get rid of civil marriage.

And I hope all y'all remember where you hid all the eggs (or if not, that the ones you forgot are all outside).

Marriage is a creature of religion, adopted by the state. Your point about choosing the means of incorporation is valid, but it ignores that there IS no civil rights protection clause for corporations. In the simplest sense... why is sexuality a matter for the government? If a gay man were "in the closet", should he have to "come out" in order to get equal treatment? Should he have to "marry" his partner to let him make decisions for him, or can he just decide to let them make decisions for him and file the paperwork like married couples do? Heck, what if it isn't sexual at all?

I'm admitting that my scenarios are the exception, just as gay marriage was the exception for 50 years, and still is... In another 50 years, who knows what society will have turned into... and what sort of "union" will be becoming more common and seek inclusion in this "special" treatment. It may well be polygamy or aliens or robots or clones or more likely, just people who watch out for each other and their families and share everything, just not a bed.

(03-26-2013 02:25 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How they have turned this into an attack on religion instead of they hypocritical government is ALMOST impressive.

Government is their religion.

In the case of liberals, yes.

In the case of homosexuals, no. Right now they will jump on any train that runs their direction. 10 years from now it will be a different train. They are pursuing their self interest. They aren't doing it because they are liberals.

(03-31-2013 01:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 12:31 AM)rice09 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 09:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:50 PM)jh Wrote:  Straight people do have their own distinction. It's called straight.

and the term for a straight man/woman union would be? For centuries the term was marriage.

Look, gays came up with their own way of describing themselves and, as Paul and I have previously mentioned, Im sure at least one of them is intelligent enough to coin a new phrase.

If gays can call their unions marriage it might stress me enough to be suicidal and according to Tom I need to be accomodated at the expense and inconvenience of the entire population of the country.

I have to wonder if this is truly the outcome that defenders of the definition of marriage really want. Over time, society will just use the generic term that incorporates both heterosexual and homosexual unions because it will get too cumbersome to say 'married or [new term]ed' whenever you don't care which type of union it is (or you don't know the orientation of the person with whom you are speaking and do not want to make a social faux pas). My guess is that it would take under a decade for pretty much everything official to stop referencing 'spouses' and start asking about 'partners.' Eventually, I could see the word marriage falling into the same category as 'policeman' or 'fireman.'

Personally, I don't care, but I have not really seen much discussion on whether by defending the definition of marriage and holding it static, one isn't putting it at risk of becoming obsolete. For those that defend the current definition, is this an acceptable result, or do you have a reason to believe that people will still use the term marriage as often in the future as it is used today?

I think the term marriage would be more of a religious demarcation than a secular one. Some gays would be married, some would not. Some hetero would be married, some not. Like being baptized or "saved". "MARRIED" would mean what it originally meant... to be a couple in a union sanctified by whatever "god" you worship.

Hambone, I wasn't including you when I talked about 'defenders of the definition of marriage.' I can definitely see the elegance of your views, but, in order to have them, you have already accepted the fact that 'marriage' won't appear on anything with legal bearing, and have almost certainly already considered that social invitations won't be written to exclude those that, in today's terms, were in a civil marriage. Your view is to make the word less regulated, but more specialized and that fundamentally means that it will apply in fewer contexts.

I am more curious about those that want legal recognition that marriage is between a man and a woman and that civil marriages are still marriages. Their arguments use words like defense, preserve, or tradition in a way that implies that they don't want anything related to term marriage to change. However, as I see it, something has to give: either the marriage becomes more generic, or the more generic word for a 'long-term romantic relationship that creates a household' will take over. Do defenders of DOMA agree with my assessment (and implicitly accepted the latter outcome) or am I missing something in my analysis?

I can't answer for them 09... but my impression is that there are two camps... those against gay marriage as something other than a biblical marriage, and those against gay marriage as something that is a "government benefit" for being "married". I think all of those benefits could remain, and we could still have a discussion about whether or not a "gay" union needs all of the governmental support and encouragement that a "straight" union does, but without the religious overtones.

I think we should be able to create "unions" that transfer assets and let people make life decisions... and then give "tax" support for a "partner" who stays at home and cares for a family... regardless of their sex... and regardless of whether the partners are of the same or different sex. Break the issues into their components and decide what we are really trying to encourage.

Thanks for the responses, all.