The costs of gay marriage

[TheSilencer1313]

Oh am I? Colton said homosexual unions cannot result in children, must have missed the part where he said "via ****ing" Regardless of whether they make the kid the old fashioned way or with help they bear every bit as much responsibility for it and thus I believe they should receive the same rights associated with creating a family as anyone else.

Getting the state out of the union of marriage would completely end the debate.
Marriage in the old days was handled by the church, and I suppose all you'd need nowdays to add to that would be a church condoning gay marriage.
Either way, there's a seperation od church and state.... and all the whiners could shut their mouths or get out.

 

[Stoked]

Oh am I? Colton said homosexual unions cannot result in children, must have missed the part where he said "via ****ing" Regardless of whether they make the kid the old fashioned way or with help they bear every bit as much responsibility for it and thus I believe they should receive the same rights associated with creating a family as anyone else.

You did miss the rest of the conversation that would have put his reply into context.

 

[Zombie]

More often, or just the times you care about so it makes more of an impression on you? link?
Also are we to the point that we assume guilty first and force a person accused of something to try to defend themselves with that label attached?
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you wrong? Is that the negative world you live in?

Also I'm calling you out on that crap about people committing bigoted action and not even being aware of it until it is pointed out. A person cannot treat others with hatred and intolerance and not even know about it. Because hatred is active, I'm pretty sure every person that is actually bigoted knows who/what they hate and don't need it pointed out to them.



Let me clarify, as you seem intent to be coy.
I have labeled you as a child abuser because your daughter wanted a candy bar from the store and you told her no.... in public... in front of witnesses! You cur!


You are the one comparing them, my example has to do with words and has nothing to do with adults, blacks, women homosexuals, or your opinion of children. You take an analogy and see what you want to see Shelob. One might say you try to spin your webs and catch people in them purposefully. One might say you see what you want to see even when there is nothing there. If you want to see hurt in everything around you, you will find it. I might even say you are a bigot if you tend to see bigotry all around you. You may try to attack people and try to get them to defend themselves of perceived hurts but realize any defense I make will not make the self inflicted hurts and wounds any better. Self inflicted woulds can only be healed by two sources, the first of course is yourself. The second is Jesus Christ. If I am offended at some perceived hurt from somebody else, most of the time nothing harmful was intended and they have no idea whatsoever that I am hurt. I can hang onto it and become bitter, or I can let it go and let myself heal. Stop the self inflicted wounds One Brow. Stop seeing bigotry and all the rest all around you. You might get lucky once or twice with your accusations, but most of the time I suspect you are jumping at shadows.



Is this your definition of what you are doing? Are you asking for my validation?




I don't think its a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents at all. He is lumping all people accused of being racists and misogynists and saying they just have to deal with it because it is the truth. (with few exceptions)


That is only true of people that are truly racists and misogynists. I say you are beyond using a broad brush to paint those words around, I think you are using a roller in your use of those words.
I don't know what Ian's definition of those words is and who he thinks fit in those categories, but I believe yours to be woefully off target, and that is my main issue with your whole schtick. If I hated women and/or held them in contempt in any way I would know about it. If I hated gays and/or lesbians I would know about it. If I hated anyone of any race or religion I would know about it.


Here is something I hate. I hate those neighborhood cats that come in my backyard and crap in my lawn and garden. Do you know what I do when I see them? I stop whatever I'm doing, I run out of my back yard and chase them, kick then, throw anything I can at them in hopes they will not return. I don't even hate them enough to really hurt them or kill them.

I disagree with plenty of things I don't hate.
I disagree most policy points of liberals.
I disagree with people walking their dogs and letting them dump all over the park.
I disagree with the gay/lesbian lifestyle.
I disagree with whether the seat should be up or down at home.

I don't go out of my way to harm or hurt anyone on the other side of these disagreements in any way. I speak my peace as respectfully as I can, and go from there.

If you want to change words, and jump at shadows, and try to claim what I do is something it is not, go ahead. That's your opinion, but that's all it is.

I don't to speak for one brow, but to me it seems to me that you and others who wish to deny the right to marriage to homosexuals are not necessarily bad people, merely that you are a product of your culture, and your cultures inherent intolerance of gays can and does lead to intolerance in individuals. In the same way that a someone who was opposed to equal rights a hundred years ago may not have actively hated blacks, but still held bigoted beliefs, people who wish to deny gays the right to marry may not have any ill feelings towards gays but their position is no less founded on bigotry.

 

[Zombie]

You did miss the rest of the conversation that would have put his reply into context.

You're right. He was talking specifically about intercourse between the two individuals producing valid offspring. My bad. I do still find that distinction beyond pointless as it pertains to whether or not their family ought to be legitimate in the eyes of the state. Or to put it another way I don't see their relationship to be fundamentally different because they can't produce offspring without help.

 

[Chris-L]

does it cost more for gay people to get married than straight people? this thread confuses me.

 

[Zombie]

does it cost more for gay people to get married than straight people? this thread confuses me.

Its going to cost all of us a bit more. Think about it, if 13% more people are able to marry that's 13% more weddings the rest of us will have to attend and 13% more gifts we'll have to buy. You gotta think the makers of small appliances are licking their lips over the prospect of gay marriage!

 

[moevillini]

Not to biological children of the union. And in that sense, a homosexual union is more similar to, say, two sisters that live together and want to adopt a child, than to a traditional marriage. Would you call the two sisters' relationship a marriage?

I know this is not what you mean, but it sounds as though you're saying that biological children conceived via sexual intercourse within the marital union are somehow superior to children conceived via other means....

 

[Stoked]

You're right. He was talking specifically about intercourse between the two individuals producing valid offspring. My bad. I do still find that distinction beyond pointless as it pertains to whether or not their family ought to be legitimate in the eyes of the state. Or to put it another way I don't see their relationship to be fundamentally different because they can't produce offspring without help.

Fair enough.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Can someone more educated than I explain why the gov't just doesn't appease both sides and get out of the whole marriage game?

My Mormon lawyer buddy put it best:

Again, if you don't like state sponsored marriage, no one is forcing you to do it.

If you think it is a good idea for the government to butt out of marriage completely, that would be extremely problematic for several reasons. Just proving the existence of a marriage would be a huge issue. Imagine a wife who works full time to support her husband getting his degree only to be dumped once he's done. How does she prove she's entitled to alimony? Inheritance, child custody, health care, etc... Marriage touches so many areas, it is wholly impractical for government to say, "you guys just figure it out."

As for existing laws, you can't just "repeal" the discriminatory ones. It's not that simple. There aren't any laws that say "gays can't visit their spouses in the hospital." The relevant law is HIPAA that precludes non family members from getting your health info. If a gay guy wants to visit his spouse, the relevant concern is whether he can be a spouse or not, not whether HIPAA has an anti gay provision, because it doesn't.

I guess you could also ask the government to say "you guys figure it out" when it comes to HIPAA and every other law that touches on marital relationships, but again, it's not practical.

 

[nightmare3983]

My Mormon lawyer buddy put it best:

Those smart lawyers. That makes sense to me.

 

[babe]

smart lawyers are the cause of a lot of our societal problems. They write laws when they get elected to public office. They twist laws in legal wrangles in courts. And they charge a lot of money, too.

 

[babe]

So One Brow has thrown out some loose prejudice here. . . .

I've been gone a day or more, so it's several pages back, but since he is the essential definer and enforcer of political correctness in here, dedicated to finding all bigots and calling them out on it, here is what he said:

(post 207). .. . . easy to get lost in his ramblings. . . .

To refer to gay marriage as a "degrading" is a nakedly bigoted statement. It doesn't bother me that you hold a nakedly bigoted opinion, of course. I'll just call you on it when you pretend it is otherwise

.

here is what I said:

(post 204)

I think the insistence on seeking government validation for gays while degrading the meaning of marriage is divisive and unproductive, and the agenda as being pushed is actually destructive of all human rights because it turns our government into an agent of tyranny more than it already is. There is way to go with all this that will decrease the role of government and laws regulating personal behaviours and beliefs. Why not go that way?????

In my statement the clause "while degrading the meaning of marriage" refers to a centuries-old meaning that has, in virtually all human language, referred specifically to a man-woman relation. It has carried concepts of a great variety on nuance about the union of the two human sexes in a societally-recognized relation across all that time, while there has been homosexuality going on sometimes even openly and with in some places and times less stigma than in America today, whose relations were not considered "marriage" because of the necessary ingredient in the concept being the union of two people, a man and a woman. I am saying that the traditional meaning of "marriage" is degraded by the use of the term in other applications.

Words are often degraded, and experience a loss of meaning in human language, when people begin to use them to mean something quite distinctly different. or even opposite to a traditional usage. It happens faster in places/languages with no written language, and it happens faster among illiterate speakers of languages generally. Sometimes some folks will get educated and begin to use finer or more specific words to convey their meanings, and when the word they need is now being used quite loosely, it makes it more difficult for others to pick up the meaning intended.

And like I said, it appears to me in the case of the subject of this thread, that there are people who mean to just be divisive. It's a tactic much-used in politics, and has been advocated by thinkers like Machiavelli. Others have posited some sociological and political theories based on setting up two ideological camps and pitting them one against the other as a tool for change, control, or raw power.

Throwing out hate-loaded terminologies for people whose opinions or characteristics you detest is pretty much the traditional definition of bigotry.

People who use the term as One Brow does may be degrading the meaning of "bigotry" by using it in reference to people who actually can speak and understand English.

 

[Zombie]

So One Brow has thrown out some actual hate speech in here, without justification, while apparently not even understanding what he's talking about.

I've been gone a day or more, so it's several pages back, but since he is the self-appointed hall monitor in here to find all bigots and call them out on it, here is what he said:
IO
(post 207). .. . . easy to get lost in his ramblings. . . .

.

here is what I said:

(post 204)



In my statement the clause "while degrading the meaning of marriage" refers to a centuries-old meaning that has, in virtually all human language, referred specifically to a man-woman relation. It has carried concepts of a great variety on nuance about the union of the two human sexes in a societally-recognized relation across all that time, while there has been homosexuality going on sometimes even openly and with in some places and times less stigma than in America today, whose relations were not considered "marriage" because of the necessary ingredient in the concept being the union of two people, a man and a woman. I am saying that the traditional meaning of "marriage" is degraded by the use of the term in other applications.

Words are often degraded, and experience a loss of meaning in human language, when people begin to use them to mean something quite distinctly different. or even opposite to a traditional usage. It happens faster in places/languages with no written language, and it happens faster among illiterate speakers of languages generally. Sometimes some folks will get educated and begin to use finer or more specific words to convey their meanings, and when the word they need is now being used quite loosely, it makes it more difficult for others to pick up the meaning intended.

And like I said, it appears to me in the case of the subject of this thread, that there are people who mean to just be divisive. It's a tactic much-used in politics, and has been advocated by thinkers like Machiavelli. Others have posited some sociological and political theories based on setting up two ideological camps and pitting them one against the other as a tool for change, control, or raw power.

Throwing out hate-loaded terminologies for people's who opinions or characteristics you detest is pretty much the definition of bigotr

People who use the term as One Brow does may be degrading the meaning of "bigotry" by using it in reference to people who actually can speak and understand English.

Funny that when a words meaning changes to something that you don't like it has somehow been degraded. To me extending marriage to others actually adds meaning to the word rather than the opposite. I find your choice of words awfully telling. I also think it's pretty hilarious that the guy arguing against equal rights for others is accusing the other side of divisiveness. It shows a complete lack of self awareness.

 

[babe]

My Mormon lawyer buddy put it best:

Again, if you don't like state sponsored marriage, no one is forcing you to do it.

If you think it is a good idea for the government to butt out of marriage completely, that would be extremely problematic for several reasons. Just proving the existence of a marriage would be a huge issue. Imagine a wife who works full time to support her husband getting his degree only to be dumped once he's done. How does she prove she's entitled to alimony? Inheritance, child custody, health care, etc... Marriage touches so many areas, it is wholly impractical for government to say, "you guys just figure it out."

As for existing laws, you can't just "repeal" the discriminatory ones. It's not that simple. There aren't any laws that say "gays can't visit their spouses in the hospital." The relevant law is HIPAA that precludes non family members from getting your health info. If a gay guy wants to visit his spouse, the relevant concern is whether he can be a spouse or not, not whether HIPAA has an anti gay provision, because it doesn't.

I guess you could also ask the government to say "you guys figure it out" when it comes to HIPAA and every other law that touches on marital relationships, but again, it's not practical.

paternity issues are regularly settled in courts, with child support judgments and such, including visitation and custody arrangements, for unmarried heterosexual couples. The existence of the "marriage" is not the issue when a child is the main concern.

A lot of unmarried heterosexual "partners" actually choose not to have the legal responsibilities they'd encounter if they got married. . . .

probably some GLBT folks might feel the same. Benefits? hell yeah. Responsibilities? hell no.

The critically significant thing about traditional marriage is it's meaning, and the expectations of support and total commitment which follow the traditional family scenarios. A woman or a man might choose to reserve their sexual experience to the person they marry precisely because it is far more than a thing defined by the sex act.

Some gays may be thinking in similar terms, and I see no reason they shouldn't be treated as a legal partnership with equal standing in matters like probate or estate, or any other purely legal aspect. It would only take a contract being legally enforceable. . . . on the same terms as a "marriage" is with heterosexual folks. I would suggest a name for it: "household partners" and I wouldn't dream of saying anyone actually has to be sexually-involved to be able to be recognized as a legal, financial, and/or caregiving team.

But this discussion, and the general issue in our public political debate, is not really about that. It is about regulating personal beliefs and enforcing compliance to a belief set that some people feel is superior, or desirable. As such it is in fact an imposition upon personal liberty.

 

[babe]

Funny that when a words meaning changes to something that you don't like it has somehow been degraded. To me extending marriage to others actually adds meaning to the word rather than the opposite. I find your choice of words awfully telling. I also think it's pretty hilarious that the guy arguing against equal rights for others is accusing the other side of divisiveness. It shows a complete lack of self awareness.

oh I'm aware. I've been in a lot of arguments that degraded into semantics and name-calling and not-so-subtle put-downs. I do the best I can to defend actual ideas against intellectual thugs who are as lacking in self-awareness as you seem to be.

let me put it as simply as I can. It's a war on traditional values where the folks whose beliefs and sentiments are not acceptable to the ones who think they know better. You are about establishing your views as the legally-enforced, state-sanctioned norm and gaining the political power to proscribe other beliefs and lifestyle notions. You're not the nice guys who are actually compassionate and understanding, but you are not self-aware or honest enough to admit it.

 

[Zombie]

oh I'm aware. I've been in a lot of arguments that degraded into semantics and name-calling and not-so-subtle put-downs. I do the best I can to defend actual ideas against intellectual thugs who are as lacking in self-awareness as you seem to be.

let me put it as simply as I can. It's a war on traditional values where the folks whose beliefs and sentiments are not acceptable to the ones who think they know better. You are about establishing your views as the legally-enforced, state-sanctioned norm and gaining the political power to proscribe other beliefs and lifestyle notions. You're not the nice guys who are actually compassionate and understanding, but you are not self-aware or honest enough to admit it.

Hahaha yeah yeah you're right! You got me! I'm the one who is pushing my beliefs on others by believing the law should treat everyone equally regardless of who they prefer to spend their lives with. And you're right I don't do it because I have empathy for those around me but because I just like telling others how to live their lives, because that makes so much sense.
Look buddy, nobody is saying you can't go right on thinking whatever you want about gay marriage, it being legal will not impact your ability to think about it whatever you like. Nor will it impact your ability to get married to whomever you like. So spare me all the nonsense about it being a "war on traditional values." Your values, such as they are, must not be very firmly held if something that will impact your life in no material way is such a threat to them.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

But this discussion, and the general issue in our public political debate, is not really about that. It is about regulating personal beliefs and enforcing compliance to a belief set that some people feel is superior, or desirable. As such it in fact an imposition upon personal liberty.

As I said earlier, rights that are based on exclusion will lose out to rights based on inclusion. Your imposition based on the right to exclusivity is trumped when in direct opposition of imposition based on the right to inclusiveness.

The semantic argument is required, since it comes down to the definition of a word to those that wish to exclude, after all. Much in the same way the nuclear family isn't the "traditional" form of a family in human history, heterosexual monogamous marriage isn't really the "traditional" form of marriage.

When Bush wanted to ban gay marriage: https://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Even in the US history, the idea of marriage has changed. Think a 1950's marriage is the same as a 2010's marriage? https://users.rcn.com/bendesky/about/cbta/50swoman.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only four key arguments for the exclusive side: I don't like it, morally wrong, no kids/bad family structure, not traditional.

Traditional marriage is impossible to truly define, and certainly not universal in any way, since there is a bevy of research on what marriage has meant to humans across time, so that's not a valid argument. The foundation of marriage is not exclusive to sex and child rearing, since child bearing and rearing occur outside of marriage, and marriage occurs outside of sex and child bearing and rearing, making the child angel flimsy at best. Is the belief that banning two people from having the same legal (and not same but separate) status as two other people less of a moral? Do morals have a ranking scale? If not, than morals cancel each other out.

That leaves that you just don't like it. Not going to win much with that as your only strong argument.

Here's kind of an interesting read on reaction to the Supreme Court case.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-makes-us-human/201303/ask-anthropologist-about-marriage

 

[Zombie]

Jesus Christ dude persecution complex much? I don't think I am superior to you, I just think I am right and you are wrong about this particular issue an am telling you why. In fact the whole notion of me being the one trying to impose superiority is laughable after you just attempted to do the same by saying I'm 19 and thus, presumably, younger and less wise than yourself. So why don't you go ahead and put away the victim card and Don't pretend that by denying Gays the right to marriage you aren't deciding for others what words mean and how to use them. Once again those in favor of marriage equality aren't the ones telling others how to live their lives.
EDIT - This is a response to a post by babe which has since disappeared into the aether.

 

[babe]

Jesus Christ dude persecution complex much? I don't think I am superior to you, I just think I am right and you are wrong about this particular issue an am telling you why. In fact the whole notion of me being the one trying to impose superiority is laughable after you just attempted to do the same by saying I'm 19 and thus, presumably, younger and less wise than yourself. So why don't you go ahead and put away the victim card and Don't pretend that by denying Gays the right to marriage you aren't deciding for others what words mean and how to use them. Once again those in favor of marriage equality aren't the ones telling others how to live their lives.
EDIT - This is a response to a post by babe which has since disappeared into the aether.

yah I deleted the post. yah I still think you're 19, maybe. based on your arguments and style, which old dudes usually drift away from after a while. maybe.

I'm nobody's victim. I see you reaching deep to come up with some kind of psychobabble dismissive or marginalizing framework for misconstruing my comments. And hell yeah. Nobody's got the Superiority edge on today's crop of progressives.

I think you'd have to re-think your own comments if you actually re-read mine.

 

[nightmare3983]

People against gay marriage aren't necessarily telling people how to live their lives either, although some are. But in a sense that goes both ways since people in support of gay marriage are telling other people what they should accept.