 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
DaveSZ
When The Levee Breaks
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: ATX
|
|
|
 Apr-06-2004 06:39 
|
|
|
|
|
arctic
Teh Pwn
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Oh come on now arctic, we've been over this before, and that's how we came to the compromise of civil unions! |
Ah, but I've actually (gasp!) changed my mind since then. 
| quote: |
There is simply no way to have an appropriate "screening" process for infertile couples, or heterosexual couples who just don't want children (besides, they might change their minds). |
Agreed. Therefore, denying gays marriage would see a bit illogical to me. Gays might be naturally infertile if you like, but they aren't 'practically' infertile, they still have kids by other means. Since the last gay marriage thread I've re-examined my position on this, and basically concluded that gays shouldn't be excluded from this, as thanks to modern technology, they too are fertile.
| quote: | | If a gay man wants to marry a lesbian woman, they'll still get all the benefits - they're no "screening" process for gays here either. It's just silly to grant marriage to situations which are totally guaranteed not to produce offspring. |
Then again, what if the gay man and the lesbian were to adopt a nice little boy from an orphanage in Africa? However remote the chances, they could still end up with children in the end.
| quote: | | Homosexuals aren't being denied anything because of genetics. They can still get married already - to a woman! |
Which of course completely ignores the fact that they aren't attracted to women (or men if they happen to be lesbians). Would you agree with the following:
1) Heterosexuality has a genetic and/or biological component, and by the time someone has reached the legal age of consent, is not a choice.
2) Homosexuality has a genetic and/or biological component, and by the time someone has reached the legal age of consent, is not a choice.
If we can agree there, then it would seem to me that by definition, the state denying marriage licences to homosexual couples is discriminatory. Besides, if the tables were somehow turned in the future, and the state was only issuing marriage licences to gays, couldn't the same argument be turned around and used on you? "Heterosexual males can get married - to a man!"
| quote: | | In fact, as above, a gay man could easily get married to a lesbian woman. A same-sex marriage is the same element of "choice" as polygamy. Surely these people can't *help* their attractions to 5 separate women any more than the man can *help* his attraction to the other man he wants to marry? |
Just as an infertile heterosexual could marry another infertile heterosexual when there is no element of love involved whatsoever - they don't even have to live together. The marriage system can just as easily be defrauded today as it could be if gays were to be allowed to marry. Again, I think we're heading down road where we both declare our dislike for the state getting involved in marriages, although this time we wont compromise on civil unions.
As for the polygamy issue, I don't actually see why polygamy should be outlawed - if people are into that, then good for them. Personally I couldn't stand being in a polygamous relationship, as I value exclusivity (as most people do), but if someone likes that then who am I to get in their way.
That being said, there is still a major distinction to be made between polygamy and homosexuality. Polygamy isn't a type of sexual orientation, it's simply the state of being married to multiple people. I see your point when it comes to polygamous chaps being no more able to choose who they love than homosexuals. However, polygamous people can choose not to be polygamous so to speak. they're perfectly able to fall in love with one person, whereas homosexuals are apparently biologically (and possibly genetically) 'forced' to be gay. They have to love people of the same sex, whereas polygamous people can love one or more people.
| quote: | | Reason for civil union is to give them the "rights" they seek without having to redefine marriage itself (because the logical conclusion of such an event would be for it to also include incest and polygamy). |
Logically, yes, but in practice, no. Let me explain - a lot of gay rights activists seem to run with the argument that because homosexuality is not a choice, denying them marriage isn't fair. Only then do they add the 'it doesn't hurt anyone' or 'it's beneficial to society to help gay families' reasoning on to their case. Whenever I discuss this issue in real life, the number one reason people seem to have for supporting gay marriage is because it isn't a choice. When incest or polygamy is brought up, they immediately roll out the “Hah! They are choices!” argument, and for them, that's that. There's also the fact that (in part) due to homosexuality not being a choice, they invariably end up with reasonably large gay rights organizations and pressure groups. Due to incest and polygamy not begin inherent sexual orientations, they basically don't seem to have the numbers to organize lobbyists or campaigns that can effectively change public (and political) opinion to further their cause.
I also believe that simply calling them civil unions is foolhardy, because once civil unions become widespread, people will begin to view them as normal and the stigma attached to them will simply disappear. People will view them in the same way that they view marriage. Asking someone 'are you married' or 'how's the marriage been so far?' is much easier than 'are you civil union'd?'
As acceptance grows – they'll end up being called marriages. I think that this might actually happened within a few decades of civil unions being legalized (if they are indeed legalized as opposed to homosexual marriages being allowed), but no doubt others will disagree. Either way, I view homosexual marriage as inevitable. Calling them civil unions is just a way of delaying the inevitable.
That aside, calling them civil unions when in practice they're exactly the same as marriage, to me at least – seems a bit silly.
| quote: | | If marriage, to you is solely about commitment to one you love, then civil unions as a compromise should be a no-brainer; insisting on the marriage "title" is solely to make a public statement. |
*whips out benefits list - http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm*
We both know that marriage isn't exclusively about committing to the person you love. There's also the tax breaks, the benefits you gain and so on. Insisting on the marriage title to me is necessary, as without it, it signifies the government discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, something that (in Australia at lease) was recently made illegal. Besides – in practice they are marriages, so why not call them that?
| quote: | | Stop replying to the fundies, we already know they have nothing useful to say. |
But it's so much fun. 
Your point about the dictionary definitions is an interesting one, although I'm more inclined to go along with what Epicurus said – sorry.
That out of the way, Epicurus did a far better job of articulating his position than I did. Revert to his post if mine contains any flaws or errors.  To stray even further off topic - welcome to the forums Epicurus, it's always god to have people that agree with me about. 
___________________
Currently Whoring:- Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
- CPU - So It Begins
- Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
|
|
Apr-06-2004 09:28 
|
|
|
|
|
Arbiter
Naked Power Organ
Registered: May 2002
Location:
|
|
|
| quote: | I also believe that simply calling them civil unions is foolhardy, because once civil unions become widespread, people will begin to view them as normal and the stigma attached to them will simply disappear. People will view them in the same way that they view marriage. Asking someone 'are you married' or 'how's the marriage been so far?' is much easier than 'are you civil union'd?'
As acceptance grows – they'll end up being called marriages. I think that this might actually happened within a few decades of civil unions being legalized (if they are indeed legalized as opposed to homosexual marriages being allowed), but no doubt others will disagree. Either way, I view homosexual marriage as inevitable. Calling them civil unions is just a way of delaying the inevitable.
That aside, calling them civil unions when in practice they're exactly the same as marriage, to me at least – seems a bit silly.
|
It's actually quite significant, because it reinforces the separation of church and state. Marriage is, and in the foreseeable future will be, a religious institution in the minds of many, if not a majority, of the population. According to the principle of separation of church and state, religious marriage and legal marriage need to be two completely separate things. And, as a general rule, if two things are completely different and unrelated, they should probably not be called the same thing.
You’re right that most people will still simply call the people “married.” But that’s really beside the point. You could call them “civil union’d,” “hitched,” “fuselaged,” or just be honest and call them “imprisoned.” But that really doesn’t matter. What’s important is that, from a legal standpoint, there is a strict line of demarcation between marriage as a religious institution and civil unions as a legal and social institution. Using a different word in formal legal practice facilitates this goal and reaffirms the lack of a connection between the two institutions.
|
|
|
Apr-06-2004 10:41
|
|
|
|
|
DigiNut
You kids get off my lawn!
Registered: Dec 2002
Location: Toronto, Self-proclaimed Centre of the Universe
|
|
|
Arctic, I'm going to keep this very simple.
Your entire argument, and the entire argument of the gay community, really relies upon the notion that homosexuals can't "choose who they love/are attracted to" so to speak.
That's fine. Whether I choose to accept it as biological or not is not the issue. That's why homosexuality isn't outlawed. It's not considered rape. It's not considered sodomy. There's no law against the practice in terms of love or sexuality.
Marriage isn't, wasn't, and never will be about love. That is a subjective, ideal definition that holds no meaning or value in the modern world except to push a personal agenda. Simply because you are in love with someone does not give you the right to government benefits derived from a union with them. Marriage originated as a religious term and we can either continue to see it as that, or we can alternatively define those benefits as family benefits - NOT "love" benefits. They are there to encourage family and, whether or not a gay couple can adopt or not is not relevant to the issue either; they have no chance of producing offspring, therefore they have no chance of getting the benefits. Adoption is not a form of fertility - someone else had to produce that child. Neither is insemination - some man had to give them the sperm. If a relationship depends on a 3rd-party in order to produce offspring then it is not, in and of itself, a sustainable family.
People cloud the issue with their own personal emotions and the "human" element but don't seem to comprehend that it simply isn't an emotional issue. Marriage is between a man and woman ipso facto, by definition, and where that definition was derived from is immaterial. We don't see gay couples complaining that they should have the right to coitus too. The word usage is specific to two members of opposite sexes - it really doesn't matter where it came from or why.
But nevertheless, the government caved in anyway and gave them what they wanted despite that argument - they said okay, you can HAVE all the benefits you're asking for, you just have to come up with your own new word for it, because "marriage" happens to be taken already. And yet somehow that wasn't enough, they rejected this, it had to be "equated" with marriage despite the fact that it was completely outside the realm of marriage's objective definition.
It's tiring to live in a world where words now mean whatever someone else wants them to mean, instead of what they really mean. Postmodernism was the worst philosophy ever to come to light and if I could go back in time to kill its founders, I would. It's nothing more than a semantic game - someone else is awarded a privilege and you want it too, so instead of doing the same things they did in order to be awarded that privilege, you redefine the language used to determine who is awarded that privilege so that the language includes you too. If they refuse, discrimination is afoot, and that is a very very bad thing (since when?).
If you can't find a solution, just redefine the problem so that it's already solved, right?
To summarize, and I stand by my convictions on this one: your entire argument on this subject is based around a subjective personal interpretation of marriage that is entirely divorced (no pun intended) from its objective definition. It is thus patently incorrect on a physical level and is simply an appeal to emotion, which is a fairly good explanation for why it is such a popular belief among women. There is no logic to the position you state - or rather, there is, but it's built on a foundation of subjective emotions that no rational mind would willingly accept over an objective definition.
I still believe that the entire marital system is flawed at its core and should be totally disposed of and replaced with civil unions period, with the union being a contract between anyone and anyone, even mother and son for all I care. But that needs to be done from the ground up, not by misapplying the constitution in order to force odd amendments to existing law. If the government doesn't want to trash everything religious in origin and start over again from scratch, then homosexuals are going to have to settle for civil unions for now because marriage is a very specific narrow term that happens to exclude a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It's not going to mean something else simply because we want it to. It means what it means, period.
I'm sure that many disagree, but to me, all these activists pushing for gay marriages are like spoiled children nagging their parents to buy a new toy. I think the government needs to be the stern parent, put its foot down, and say enough is enough, stop your whining and go to your room!
___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here
|
|
Apr-06-2004 16:38 
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:03.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
Alright, my job here is done, I'm going to sleeeeep 
