California, Prop 8

[pockyD]

Personally, I think all these questions can be answered on the merits of gay marriage and gay marriage alone. The things you mentioned above are interesting to discuss, but not needed when discussing legalizing gay marriage.

It's pretty obvious that gay marriage has very different implications and neccessities to polygamous marriages and animal-human marriages. Perhaps I'm just bitter from real life debates I've had with people, where they attempt to blur these lines to convince themselves that the slippery slope argument is valid.

What about it makes the slippery slope argument invalid?

I agree, the lines are pretty well drawn. However, it's not 100% clear to me that the line(s) in quesiton is/are valid in terms of being the place to separate the rights

Before delving into scenarios and whatnot, it's important to first attempt to define "what is marriage?" Is it a union between two people (like you seem to suggest)? Why is this inherently more deserving of recognition than a union between three people? (i'm legitimately asking, not trying to prove a point)

Rather than assume "everyone knows that's dumb", I think it's important to define why the "line" is relevant. There's a "clear" line between gay marriage and straight marriage too, but you're dismissing that as an improper divide. You need to explain why these other lines (polygamy, animals, children, whatever) are necessarily less valid than the gay/straight line

 

[Batchfile]

Compelling argument

Righteous indignation and gross over-simplification. I'm sure we're all convinced!

It IS simple. Most people don't understand just how simple it is.

 

[pockyD]

It IS simple. Most people don't understand just how simple it is.

Why bother posting if you don't have anything interesting // new to say?

 

[SuperBowser]

What about it makes the slippery slope argument invalid?

I agree, the lines are pretty well drawn. However, it's not 100% clear to me that the line(s) in quesiton is/are valid in terms of being the place to separate the rights

Before delving into scenarios and whatnot, it's important to first attempt to define "what is marriage?" Is it a union between two people (like you seem to suggest)? Why is this inherently more deserving of recognition than a union between three people? (i'm legitimately asking, not trying to prove a point)

Rather than assume "everyone knows that's dumb", I think it's important to define why the "line" is relevant. There's a "clear" line between gay marriage and straight marriage too, but you're dismissing that as an improper divide. You need to explain why these other lines (polygamy, animals, children, whatever) are necessarily less valid than the gay/straight line

For the record I'm not against polygamy (though in the realistic world we live in I question if it'd work out that well).

But, my point is that these things all wish to change different things about the term ''marriage''. They should be treated on a case by case basis because they are very different. I think we all know why animals and children are not comparable (consent, blahblahblah) and polygamous marriages deserve their own topic because of the sheer number of new issues they bring in. Finances, ethics and social implications. Gay marriage has none of these issues and, most importantly, there's no sound argument for why gay marriage would be detrimental to society. Lumping it with these other topics is a misrepresentation of gay marriage.

I'm not saying one is less valid than the other - when there is a push by society for these polygamy to be legalized, then it's fine to discuss it. I just feel that it is irrelevant as to why gay marriage should not be legalized.

 

[pockyD]

Once again, the legalization of gay marriage is, in reality, a redefinition of "marriage" itself to cover this extra scenario. However, I'm still lost as to why "marriage" needs to exist anyway... Regardless, if it is to be kept, there needs to be a base definition of what "marriage" should mean... I'm interested in what your take is on what marriage "should mean". Why does such a thing need to be recognized? If for some bizarre reason, we give the government the power to affirm a relationship (like marriage is), how can we complain that the government also has the power to deny it?

Plus, I don't see how "not detrimental to society" is necessarily an argument to legalize something. "It couldn't hurt" is pretty poor reasoning for passing something

 

[SuperBowser]

Plus, I don't see how "not detrimental to society" is necessarily an argument to legalize something. "It couldn't hurt" is pretty poor reasoning for passing something

Let me rephrase that then. It is detrimental (for reasons mentioned ad infinitum) to a significant minority of our society if not legalized, and there is no (good) reason to not change this law.

The other questions you're asking: I'd be willing to answer tomorrow (I need to sleep now), if it doesn't count as off topic. But I'll say this. Society is happy with the concept of marriage right now. As long as it exists, do you not think it's unfair that gays are denied from these rights?

 

[pockyD]

But I'll say this. Society is happy with the concept of marriage right now. As long as it exists, do you not think it's unfair that gays are denied from these rights?

... -_-

"the concept of marriage right now" is in fact straight marriage. People against gay marriage are using the exact same argument of referencing the status quo =\

From what I gather, the legality of gay marriage in this small number of states (whereas it's not legal in most of them) can probably be understood as more of a loophole rather than legal intent. Thus, I don't necessarily find it agreeable that "gay marriage is legal in some places" is indeed the status quo, when 47 other states (or however many) have explicitly banned it

 

[SuperBowser]

... -_-

"the concept of marriage right now" is in fact straight marriage. People against gay marriage are using the exact same argument of referencing the status quo =\

Depends where you're talking about I'm not from USA. Though that's not what I meant anyway. You were questioning why marriage needs to exist at all. I was simply stating that as long as marriage does exist, it's unfair to deny it to gay people.

But come on. If you want reasons for legalizing gay marriage, you can read the hundreds of posts preceding mine on the matter. I don't see the point in repeating them.

 

[pockyD]

Well I actually think that if it's a flawed concept, it doesn't really matter who the right is granted to.

Regardless of what happens (legalized or not), the end result is an affirmation and deeper entrenching of the concept of marriage which is flawed to begin with. I find that the very fact that gay marriage is so hotly debated lends creedence to the fact that "marriage" is ill-defined.

Like I said, the argument isn't really whether gay marriage should be legal... it's more whether gay marriage IS marriage, and subsequently, what is marriage? The very fact that everyone has their differing views on the answer to that suggests to me that there is absolutely no reason that the government should step in and recognize some specific form of it.

The arguments in the topic are geared towards equality and things of that nature. I am not necessarily disagreeing with equal treatment, so I am not rejecting those arguments. To me, it's not acceptable to cover up a wrong by extending its scope. For example, if only white people were allowed to own only black slaves, would it be an acceptable compromise for people of any color to own slaves of any color? Of course not, because the primary issue behind that is not of racism; it is of slavery. In the same way, I think the prevalent issue should not be of sexual orientation, but of legalized marriage, period.

 

[Surri-Sama]

So you're against Las Vegas marriages, then?

Yes I am, i am also be against polygamy simply for an easier life (more wives can mean more income and more things done for you)

And Pocky, I understand what your saying, and agree with most of it.

But what exactly is the problem with gay marriage then (providing you are argueing against it...seriously its kinda hard to tell) if its not about Equality.

I know you say its about Legalized marriage...but does that mean you dont think Straight people should be allowed to wed either?

 

[pockyD]

I know you say its about Legalized marriage...but does that mean you dont think Straight people should be allowed to wed either?

precisely

unless there is a good reason for "married couples" to receive benefits, which i've yet to hear

 

[Eor]

precisely

unless there is a good reason for "married couples" to receive benefits, which i've yet to hear

encourages creating families

Not that it works

 

[Surri-Sama]

precisely

unless there is a good reason for "married couples" to receive benefits, which i've yet to hear

Well imo, weddings would be a union between two (or more?) people to signify religiously ultimate love ..forever...

Yes that means Religion plays a key part...but i also don't think religion hates gays either...

 

[SuperBowser]

It's true that everyone has a different definition of marriage. I think the broadest description I can think of is that it signifies the union of two people who love each other. Ok, this leaves out polyamorous relationships, but meh.

Now there are plenty of things that stem from here, but are not neccessarily true for all couples. For example, sex, shared accommodation, shared property, mutual rearing of children. Most people like the idea of having something tangible that signifies they are in a committed relationship.

Maybe the most important part is the rights you get though. By being married, you get to see your partner in a hospital. You have the most important say in their treatment when they are incapacitated. You have a say in their funeral arrangements. You will get their possessions if they die. You get tax breaks (?). I think these are an extremely important part of the definition of marriage and why the gay rights movement is so important. If marriage doesn't exist, how do you propose to sort these problems out?

 

[pockyD]

encourages creating families

Not that it works

If this is the case, then what does gay marriage have to do with it?

From what I understand, the encouraging of families is the really a push for procreation, not some push for couple-ly love

..and then, just provide benefits to people with children

Well imo, weddings would be a union between two (or more?) people to signify religiously ultimate love ..forever...

...then if your church recognizes your marriage, that should be enough. Why would you give the government more power than your God?

Yes that means Religion plays a key part...but i also don't think religion hates gays either...

...religion largely does hate gays -_-. That's not really relevant though; the argument is that religion shouldn't have any say on gays, whether positive or negative

It's true that everyone has a different definition of marriage. I think the broadest description I can think of is that it signifies the union of two people who love each other. Ok, this leaves out polyamorous relationships, but meh.

...then shouldn't the government at least pretend to take some action to enforce this ideal? For example, when people marry non-citizens to keep them legal, the INS or whatever will often check up on them with the intent of ensuring that it is a legitimate marriage. Why shouldn't this happen on a more general level if that is indeed the intent of marriage? (to encourage couple-ly love)

Now there are plenty of things that stem from here, but are not neccessarily true for all couples. For example, sex, shared accommodation, shared property, mutual rearing of children. Most people like the idea of having something tangible that signifies they are in a committed relationship.

All of the "tangible" things (except the marriage license itself, and possibly the children thing if you're seeking adoption) can be established without the "marriage" label, and more to the point, without being lumped together in the same group of rights as the rest of them. I truly hope that the intent of marriage law isn't laziness in obtaining legal documentation for 4-5 different rights, and instead providing a single document.

...and I fail to see why it's really necessary to have the government validate your "committed relationship", especially when in modern times, even married relationships are far from that.

Maybe the most important part is the rights you get though. By being married, you get to see your partner in a hospital. You have the most important say in their treatment when they are incapacitated. You have a say in their funeral arrangements. You will get their possessions if they die. You get tax breaks (?). I think these are an extremely important part of the definition of marriage and why the gay rights movement is so important. If marriage doesn't exist, how do you propose to sort these problems out?

You can explicitly grant anyone that right (power of attorney or whatever). You can put them in your will if you choose. Why SHOULD couples get tax breaks? Is it the government's place to further its idealistic definition of "love"?

 

[SuperBowser]

...then shouldn't the government at least pretend to take some action to enforce this ideal? For example, when people marry non-citizens to keep them legal, the INS or whatever will often check up on them with the intent of ensuring that it is a legitimate marriage. Why shouldn't this happen on a more general level if that is indeed the intent of marriage? (to encourage couple-ly love)

Input not justified by output. The money spent on this would probably uncover a ridiculously small number of native citizens who marry to simply take advantage of a few extra rights. I don't think I've ever heard of it happenning...

All of the "tangible" things (except the marriage license itself, and possibly the children thing if you're seeking adoption) can be established without the "marriage" label, and more to the point, without being lumped together in the same group of rights as the rest of them. I truly hope that the intent of marriage law isn't laziness in obtaining legal documentation for 4-5 different rights, and instead providing a single document.

...and I fail to see why it's really necessary to have the government validate your "committed relationship", especially when in modern times, even married relationships are far from that.

Maybe this idea is alien to you, but some people actually like the label of marriage that the government provides. And having to apply for all those other rights separately is just plain stupid. When it comes down to it, it's the same thing - ''I wish to spend the rest of my life with this person and therefore I am happy for them to be in charge of these things when I am not able.''. That is marriage.

If you agree that these rights need to exist, you basically agree that something extremely similar to marriage needs to exist...

edit: and not everyone makes a will. In fact, many people don't like to think about the topic of dying and leaving their possessions. Lots of gay couples have been screwed over in these sorts of situations.

 

[pockyD]

Input not justified by output. The money spent on this would probably uncover a ridiculously small number of native citizens who marry to simply take advantage of a few extra rights. I don't think I've ever heard of it happenning...

The IRS audits less than 2% of taxpayers

Maybe this idea is alien to you, but some people actually like the label of marriage that the government provides.

and some people would like the government assigning them a job, allocating rations, etc. there are plenty of things people "like" that aren't law for some reason or another

And having to apply for all those other rights separately is just plain stupid. When it comes down to it, it's the same thing - ''I wish to spend the rest of my life with this person and therefore I am happy for them to be in charge of these things when I am not able.''. That is marriage.

I'm sure you've heard the "50% of marriages end in divorce" thing, so I don't need to explain how it doesn't often turn out like that.

And that still doesn't explain why you'd need one document covering four unrelated rights (as opposed to four separate documents) simply because the reasoning behind wanting all those rights is the same. People don't hold a single document allowing them to drive cars, boats, helicopters, and airplanes.

If you agree that these rights need to exist, you basically agree that something extremely similar to marriage needs to exist...

Not necessarily... single people have people to make decisions when they're incapacitated, inherit their belongings, etc. too

edit: and not everyone makes a will. In fact, many people don't like to think about the topic of dying and leaving their possessions. Lots of gay couples have been screwed over in these sorts of situations.

the conscious decision to avoid doing something simply because it makes people "uncomfortable" is not a valid argument in my opinion. there is nothing stopping anyone from getting a will aside from their own personal hangups

 

[SuperBowser]

The IRS audits less than 2% of taxpayers

2% for a small minority . Can you imagine the amount to spend on the whole population?! And for an almost non-existant number of offenders.

I'm sure you've heard the "50% of marriages end in divorce" thing, so I don't need to explain how it doesn't often turn out like that.

And at this point the marriage is terminated. So what?

And that still doesn't explain why you'd need one document covering four unrelated rights (as opposed to four separate documents) simply because the reasoning behind wanting all those rights is the same. People don't hold a single document allowing them to drive cars, boats, helicopters, and airplanes.

Because I would only want these documents with someone that I plan to spend the rest of my life with? Therefore, when I get these documents, regardless of what you think, it is going to be a day of celebration. Kinda like a marriage.

Not necessarily... single people have people to make decisions when they're incapacitated, inherit their belongings, etc. too

And this role goes to the parents. Not some random hobo off the street claiming to be a friend.

the conscious decision to avoid doing something simply because it makes people "uncomfortable" is not a valid argument in my opinion. there is nothing stopping anyone from getting a will aside from their own personal hangups

edit: hmm the final bit somehow got deleted.

The problem with wills is that they need to be updated constantly. There's also been cases where the will was challenged by the family. I agree that this one is not needed, but it's nice to assume the partner takes the possessions rather than having to worry about wills and lawyers. A significant minority would likely be worse off without marriage otherwise (the lower socioeconomic groups...).

 

[pockyD]

2% for a small minority . Can you imagine the amount to spend on the whole population?! And for an almost non-existant number of offenders.

What? Most Americans pay their taxes. Almost all Americans are theoretically REQUIRED to pay taxes... how is that a minority?

And at this point the marriage is terminated. So what?

The point is that, "for the rest of my life" is really "for as long as I feel like it". You yourself (just one person) ALREADY have two separate definitions for marriage... how many varying views will there be if we compile thoughts from the whole population?

Because I would only want these documents with someone that I plan to spend the rest of my life with? Therefore, when I get these documents, regardless of what you think, it is going to be a day of celebration. Kinda like a marriage.

1) don't confuse a marriage with a wedding (sappy chick flick line )
2) just because that's what YOU want doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants. There are plenty of reasons to include someone in your will other than because of marriage. Why does the 'marriage' case get special treatment, while other cases don't?

And this role goes to the parents. Not some random hobo off the street claiming to be a friend.

Not necessarily; the role goes to whoever they assign their power of attorney to. Just because it goes to so-and-so by default doesn't mean it's forced.

The problem with wills is that they need to be updated constantly. There's also been cases where the will was challenged by the family. I agree that this one is not needed, but it's nice to assume the partner takes the possessions rather than having to worry about wills and lawyers. A significant minority would likely be worse off without marriage otherwise (the lower socioeconomic groups...).

Why would it need to be updated? Have it say "___ gets everything" and you get the same effect that you're proposing that a marriage has

 

[RDK]

regardless of whether or not it's your personal motivation, being pro-gay marriage is BY FAR the more "popular" opinion on internet message boards geared at our demographic (just read the posts in this topic; how many are "against"?)

Unfortunately the demographic that this board is marketed to are not the kind of people who would be going out to the polls and voting on said issues. It still stands that America is a predominantly center-right nation, and the turnout on bills such as Prop 8 show that.

If this is the case, then what does gay marriage have to do with it?

From what I understand, the encouraging of families is the really a push for procreation, not some push for couple-ly love

..and then, just provide benefits to people with children

But then even more problems arise when you use vague terms like "people". What would pass as "people with children" in this case? That's the point of marriage--to define the parents.

...then if your church recognizes your marriage, that should be enough. Why would you give the government more power than your God?

It's hard to give the government more power than something that doesn't even have any power in the first place. Things that don't exist technically don't have power.

...then shouldn't the government at least pretend to take some action to enforce this ideal? For example, when people marry non-citizens to keep them legal, the INS or whatever will often check up on them with the intent of ensuring that it is a legitimate marriage. Why shouldn't this happen on a more general level if that is indeed the intent of marriage? (to encourage couple-ly love)

Because it's not the government's job to discern whether or not my marriage (or anyone else's for that matter) is "legitimate".

You can explicitly grant anyone that right (power of attorney or whatever). You can put them in your will if you choose. Why SHOULD couples get tax breaks? Is it the government's place to further its idealistic definition of "love"?

Hey, we agree on something!

 

[pockyD]

But then even more problems arise when you use vague terms like "people". What would pass as "people with children" in this case? That's the point of marriage--to define the parents.

I don't find "people" ambiguous at all. Anyone who's considered legal guardian for a child, maybe? Being married is already long gone as a "requirement" for having a child.

The point here is that if "marriage benefits" are geared at those raising children, then the distribution of those benefits should indeed be related to the presence of children

It's hard to give the government more power than something that doesn't even have any power in the first place. Things that don't exist technically don't have power.

Don't try to side-track this into a God argument. The fact remains that if "God" tells you to do one thing and the government/law tells you to do another, the "rational" person who believes in God (indulge me and suppress your urge to shout that such a thing is surely an oxymoron and cannot exist) would go with what God says.

Because it's not the government's job to discern whether or not my marriage (or anyone else's for that matter) is "legitimate".

Right. So why are they issuing licenses that inform the world that they ARE in fact "legitimate"? With this line of logic, the protest should be to ban straight marriage, not legalize gay marriage.

I feel like you've taken this quote out of context and are trying to get me to say something that I'm not.

Hey, we agree on something!

fantastic

It feels like you just took random quotes out of like 5-6 different posts of mine, so I hope I'm addressing the right things in my responses, since my posts were not all necessarily made in the exact same context.

 

[SuperBowser]

What? Most Americans pay their taxes. Almost all Americans are theoretically REQUIRED to pay taxes... how is that a minority?

...

2% to check for a miniscule minority of marriages. What kind of system do you propose to check every single marriage that ever takes place?! What would they even judge on? Do you realise the magnitude in cost?

The point is that, "for the rest of my life" is really "for as long as I feel like it". You yourself (just one person) ALREADY have two separate definitions for marriage... how many varying views will there be if we compile thoughts from the whole population?

I haven't changed my definition. You are really grasping at straws if you are complaining about people getting divorced and how this removes the need for marriage. I wish to spend the rest of my life with X =/= I will never change my mind. People make mistakes. Get over it. My original definition didn't even include a time limit.

1) don't confuse a marriage with a wedding (sappy chick flick line )
2) just because that's what YOU want doesn't mean that's what everyone else wants. There are plenty of reasons to include someone in your will other than because of marriage. Why does the 'marriage' case get special treatment, while other cases don't?

1) I haven't. But you are being ridiculous if you think people won't want to celebrate the day they get these rights. If you don't want to call it a ''marriage'', fine. But it will still be celebrated and it will still end with surprisingly similar rights to a marriage.
2) The point is that it's assumed the person you marry takes the possessions unless stated otherwise. That's how it should always be or family stability never exists.

Not necessarily; the role goes to whoever they assign their power of attorney to. Just because it goes to so-and-so by default doesn't mean it's forced.

Again, this means more paperwork and applying for more rights that would end up being covered by ''marriage'' in one fell swoop.

Why would it need to be updated? Have it say "___ gets everything" and you get the same effect that you're proposing that a marriage has

The problem is that you have to do this with every single right that has been mentioned in this topic. Do you not see the problem here?!

What you are suggesting is silly. If you agree that these rights do need to exist (which you clearly do, since you are trying to argue about practicality) then what the hell is the difference between an umbrella term of marriage and wasting time applying for all the same things but separately. ''Marriage'' still exists; you're just pretending the word doesn't.

All the gay rights movement ask for are the same rights. If you don't want to call it marriage you should still vote no on proposition 8. The rights are still there, whether or not you like the word.

(I also agree that married couples don't need tax breaks, but this topic isn't about that so I'm not going to discuss it)

PS: My original definition of marriage: The union of two people who love each other.

 

[RDK]

I don't find "people" ambiguous at all. Anyone who's considered legal guardian for a child, maybe? Being married is already long gone as a "requirement" for having a child.

The point here is that if "marriage benefits" are geared at those raising children, then the distribution of those benefits should indeed be related to the presence of children

So the legal possession of children should be grounds for receiving "marriage benefits".

I suppose the system is kind of outdated if the point of the benefits is to assist in raising a child, and you have people who A) either don't have children or B) blow the benefits on booze money.

Right. So why are they issuing licenses that inform the world that they ARE in fact "legitimate"? With this line of logic, the protest should be to ban straight marriage, not legalize gay marriage.

I feel like you've taken this quote out of context and are trying to get me to say something that I'm not.

No, I was technically agreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded otherwise.

 

[pockyD]

...2% to check for a miniscule minority of marriages. What kind of system do you propose to check every single marriage that ever takes place?! What would they even judge on? Do you realise the magnitude in cost?

My point was that there's precedence for the government literally enforcing a law at random instead of universally.

I haven't changed my definition. You are really grasping at straws if you are complaining about people getting divorced and how this removes the need for marriage. I wish to spend the rest of my life with X =/= I will never change my mind. People make mistakes. Get over it. My original definition didn't even include a time limit.

"rest of my life" is a time limit

1) I haven't. But you are being ridiculous if you think people won't want to celebrate the day they get these rights. If you don't want to call it a ''marriage'', fine. But it will still be celebrated and it will still end with surprisingly similar rights to a marriage.

Have your party, it doesn't matter. Plenty of people get legally married in the days before or after the ceremony. Plenty of people have "re-dedications". Point is, the ceremony itself is strictly symbolic, and as such, has no relation to the legal meaning.

2) The point is that it's assumed the person you marry takes the possessions unless stated otherwise. That's how it should always be or family stability never exists.

It's only "assumed" because that's how it is. That's not necessarily how it "should" be. And when you would get "married", edit them into your will; simple as that.

Again, this means more paperwork and applying for more rights that would end up being covered by ''marriage'' in one fell swoop.

The problem is that you have to do this with every single right that has been mentioned in this topic. Do you not see the problem here?!

So you are agreeing that marriage is just a lazy shortcut?

I realize it's more work. But I also realize that it's more work to get certified to both operate a forklift and drive an 18-wheeler, but I'm perfectly content with people having two separate licenses.

What you are suggesting is silly. If you agree that these rights do need to exist (which you clearly do, since you are trying to argue about practicality) then what the hell is the difference between an umbrella term of marriage and wasting time applying for all the same things but separately. ''Marriage'' still exists; you're just pretending the word doesn't.

because "marriage still exists"... by your definition of marriage. Other people don't see marriage the same way as you; why are they more or less wrong than you are?

what I'm "pretending" is that a universal definition of marriage does not exist. If it DOES exist, then it's trivial to have the law cover that, and no one can protest it. If it does not exist, then that's where we are now, with people bickering about what should and should not qualify 2 (or more) people (or things) to get "married"

All the gay rights movement ask for are the same rights. If you don't want to call it marriage you should still vote no on proposition 8. The rights are still there, whether or not you like the word.

Prop 8 is already over and passed -_-.

Like I said, I'm indifferent to the subject. I don't care if dogs are allowed to poop in my mailbox while cats aren't; I think neither should be allowed to, and allowing cats to do so doesn't fix anything.

Equality for equality's sake isn't the solution

So the legal possession of children should be grounds for receiving "marriage benefits".

I suppose the system is kind of outdated if the point of the benefits is to assist in raising a child, and you have people who A) either don't have children or B) blow the benefits on booze money.

Right -_-. People want to keep marriage because it's "always been there", ignoring the fact that it probably doesn't satisfy the purpose for which it was originally drawn up anymore.

 

[RDK]

Lol, he said "poop".

 

[SuperBowser]

So you are agreeing that marriage is just a lazy shortcut?

I realize it's more work. But I also realize that it's more work to get certified to both operate a forklift and drive an 18-wheeler, but I'm perfectly content with people having two separate licenses.

Have your party, it doesn't matter. Plenty of people get legally married in the days before or after the ceremony. Plenty of people have "re-dedications". Point is, the ceremony itself is strictly symbolic, and as such, has no relation to the legal meaning.

Yes I do agree it's a lazy shortcut. But so what? These rights need to exist one way or another. The two are synonymous.

As I said, the only definition of marriage that people ever agree on is the union of two people who love each other. Many may expand on this, but everyone would agree with this. Along with this union, certain legal rights are granted at the same time, because, well, they're needed. The ceremony symbolizes the legal meaning; most people would agree with this; they just assume the legal side is implied by watching the cermony. If I plan to live with this woman, of course I want us to have equal rights to the children, for her to visit me in the hospital etc.

Forcing people to stay with their partner is dumb and I never meant that to be part of the definition. I think you took me out of context; It's only natural that during a marriage the person plans to spend the rest of their life with their new partner - doesn't mean it's part of the definition.

I don't understand your problem with ''marriage''. Is ''civil union'' better? Do you not think any rights should be given (which you haven't made clear if this is the case)? Do you not like the simplest definition I provided? what???

edit: and yes, i realise prop 8 passed, but you know what I meant...

 

[pockyD]

Yes I do agree it's a lazy shortcut. But so what? These rights need to exist one way or another. The two are synonymous.

They do exist. As separate rights. As they should be.

As I said, the only definition of marriage that people ever agree on is the union of two people who love each other. Many may expand on this, but everyone would agree with this.

Many expand on this... and many restrict on this. fact is, over 50% of voters in one of the most liberal states just shot down gay marriage. Were they right to do so? I don't know... but all I'm saying is that if you're going with what "everyone would agree on", then that's not going to lead to your conclusion.

Along with this union, certain legal rights are granted at the same time, because, well, they're needed.

Just because they are "traditionally granted" doesn't mean they should be. People had slaves for hundreds of years before they were abolished.

The ceremony symbolizes the legal meaning; most people would agree with this; they just assume the legal side is implied by watching the cermony. If I plan to live with this woman, of course I want us to have equal rights to the children, for her to visit me in the hospital etc.

The ceremony symbolizes the beginning of a life together. In particular, the beginning of marriage by the definition of the people involved. It does NOT symbolize the legal meaning; otherwise instead of symbolism, they'd sign their marriage licenses on the spot, with all their friends and families as witnesses. No, it's more important to hear the "I do"s and hypothetical emotional commitment than the legal commitment.

Forcing people to stay with their partner is dumb and I never meant that to be part of the definition. I think you took me out of context; It's only natural that during a marriage the person plans to spend the rest of their life with their new partner - doesn't mean it's part of the definition.

The "rest of my life" thing was said by you in response to me asking for your definition of marriage. I'm fine with you rescinding that, but where would that leave the definition? "Two people who want to stay together for an indeterminate amount of time"? Why would anyone falling in that category deserve rights?

I don't understand your problem with ''marriage''. Is ''civil union'' better? Do you not think any rights should be given (which you haven't made clear if this is the case)?

Civil union is not really better, but at least it doesn't have the varying definitions in existence like marriage does. If the government makes up an arbitrary definition for "civil union", there is no way someone can argue against what it means, because that term holds no precedent. Now, maybe that definition itself may be unconstitutional and therefore unsuitable for law, etc. but that would be something that is universally agreeable.

And yes, I don't think rights should be explicitly given. To sum up what I've been trying to say, almost all the natural "rights" bestowed on a married couple (save tax breaks) are easily achieved via other means, which are not as complicated as you seem to think they are. And no, I don't think they should get tax breaks either just for "committing to stay together for an indeterminate amount of time".

Do you not like the simplest definition I provided? what???

The one you defined previously? or the one you defined now?

If you reply to this, can you just give me what your definition of marriage is at the top of your post before beginning to address whatever I've said? I think that will make it clearer for the both of us as far as where you stand.

edit: and yes, i realise prop 8 passed, but you know what I meant...

People abstain from voting for the president when both parties suck, because voting is implicit (or maybe you could even say, explicit) approval. I felt the same way about prop 8.

 

[meresilence0]

Or maybe this entire ORIGINAL topic of the thread can be looked at in two ways: One side wants to uphold America's legacy of individual liberties, and the other wants USA to turn into the Theocratic States of America.

I did like something that Dan Savage (writer of sex/relationship advice column Savage Love) said in his most recent printing:

"O, Canada, land that I love. While America's screaming about being the "Land of the Free", me and my boyfriend magically become officially married spouses as soon as I cross the northern border."

And something from the Onion's atlas ("Our Dumb World"):

"If Canada wants to ever be on the same level as America, it still has a lot of work left to undo."

EDIT: I just read that San Francisco's mayor has said that he will continue to marry Gay couples at the city hall. Thoughts?

Get my point? This shouldn't be an issue. Nobody used to think that a marriage between an African-American couple was lawful in the eyes of God, and now if any politician says that, it's game over. The same thing should be happening right now, but homophobia and xenophobia overtakes so many people that they leave their brains in the car before they go into the polls to vote.

 

[marthanoob]

I highly doubt this proposition will last more than 2 generations.

 

[meresilence0]

I hope so. Otherwise, I will be on the first plane to Canada. I will finally be free from all the barstool chevanists who freak out over every flag burning, but fail to realize the true foundations on which the US is based.

 

[RDK]

I just hope all the religious conservatives secede and form their own small country founded on ignorant bigotry and hate. Perhaps then we can actually progress as a nation, both intellectually and socially.

 

[pockyD]

I hope so. Otherwise, I will be on the first plane to Canada. I will finally be free from all the barstool chevanists who freak out over every flag burning, but fail to realize the true foundations on which the US is based.

prop 8 has already passed

see ya!

don't make empty non-threats (as if we even care if you moved away)

I just hope all the religious conservatives secede and form their own small country founded on ignorant bigotry and hate. Perhaps then we can actually progress as a nation, both intellectually and socially.

that already happened once. as it turned out, the remaining parts of the country refused to accept it and some sort of war ensued

 

[Wolfang]

Hm, well if you live the the United States and your a citizen, you have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, you have freedom of expression (which is what marriage is, just like baptism and funerals), and of course the freedom of choice since it's a democratic society, so I don't see why not...its not hurting anyone anyways, so you don't have to box them off...

 

[RDK]

that already happened once. as it turned out, the remaining parts of the country refused to accept it and some sort of war ensued

Yeah, except this time we don't act like complete douchebags and have a hissy fit at people leaving when they have every right to do so. And plus it'll be encouraged this time.

 

[aeghrur]

Personally, I was against Prop 8 as I see it as not just unfair, but unconsitutional.
However, it has been passed so it is not a matter of simply gay rights vs christian documents/gays being bad parents anymore. It's now a matter of what "revising" really means. >_> God, that's stupid, lol.

 

[pockyD]

Yeah, except this time we don't act like complete douchebags and have a hissy fit at people leaving when they have every right to do so. And plus it'll be encouraged this time.

ah, but "we" will -_-

 

[Mewter]

Hah. This proposition isn't going to last too long, anyways. It's unconstitutional, boring, and degrading. The only reason someone would vote yes is because their minds are too simple to accept gay marriage or they are uncomfortable with it, so they discard the idea altogether. The commercials are a perfect example of what people wanted(which was wrong, by the way.
There was one ad which said that people sued to make acceptance not mandatory, teaching school children about gay marriage was wrong, and churches losing tax exemption would somehow be a result of gay marriage. I don't see how that works. Gay marriages performed in churches would benefit them... unless their religion contradicts it. You don't need to go to church to be legally married. I actually believe that something as trivial as same-sex marriage for gays should be allowed not because it can be, but because it should have been a long time ago. There's a reason four judges said "no", after all.

 

[aeghrur]

Actually Mewter, the only way it WOULD be unconstitutional would be if it revised the californian constitution. See, it's a state law and marriage is a state power thus the federal constitution cannot impose upon it. Now, also, if this proposition becomes an amendment, it can't be fixed either as you cannot revise the californian constitution, only add on to it or amend it. So, the real question is is this proposition adding on to the californian constitution or revising a definition within the constitution?

 

[Mewter]

Really? I was convinced that the Constitution applies to ALL states of the United States of America, and it says in there that all men(people) are supposed to have equal rights and are created equal. The federal government is definitely stronger and more powerful than just the state government, and this has been demonstrated clearly before. Banning gay marriage is in conflict with the Constitution, which the federal government imposes on the states. Facilities are a state power. If they conflict with the Constitution in a discriminatory way, then it is unconstitutional. Same goes for marriage, because it is a right, and is protected by the constitution. If that's not how it goes, please feel free to correct me.
People have lived with gay marriage in California for a while now. It hasn't affected them at all! As far as I'm concerned, the only affect it had on them was when they actually noticed it. None of the "consequences" they listed had had the effects they frequently use as arguments.
I think it's more likely that it is amending the constitution of California.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/prop-constitution-court-2235083-state-gay
Read paragraph 8 and the rest of the article.

 

[aeghrur]

No, see, I think it's like this:
The Federal congress cannot make laws for states rights as that is the the state's powers.
However, the Supreme court is allowed to give deem things unconstitutional.
So, what this means is that the federal government cannot approve of gay marriage, rather, disallow the negative. =/
It's up to the state to make laws to allow gay marriage and deem it legal, but if necessary, the supreme court can deem banning gay marriage illegal.

Summary:
National congress can't make laws for gay marriage.
Supreme court can deem it unconstitutional, it has not done so yet.
Only state congresses can allow gay marriage or change marriage to include gay marriage.

Ah, Mewter, as much as I agree with you on the ideal of gay marriage, I disagree upon this subject. For you see, although revision is ideally used for big changes, it's not the meaning of the word revision. Revision is rather the act of altering something or the alteration of something. Here, there was no previous definition for marriage in the constitution of California and Prop 8 simply adds to give it a definition instead of revising it's meaning. After all, you can't revise what's not there. It's not revising the protection of all part, just amending the meaning of marriage.