Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 I think a lot of people who talk about separating "marriage" from the government just plain ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,528
Thanks: 1,084
Thanked 3,819 Times in 2,587 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I think a lot of people who talk about separating "marriage" from the government just plain don't understand HOW it is entangled in the first place.
And they don't seem to fully understand the implications of the dis-entanglement.

Take the power to make medical decisions for your spouse. Just one of over 1,000 rights and privileges that the government "entangles" themselves with...

If the government removes this, what is left?
Well, there are already laws establishing familial (non-spouse) decision making.
This is part of what played out in the Terri Schiavo case. The husband had legislation backing his position of being able to make decisions for Terri, which the family was challenging based on their legal standing.
If we remove the laws helping the husband, leaving the other family protections, is that really what we want?


It's very easy to claim "let's remove government from marriage", but we ignore all the circumstances where people WANT government protection for married couples...

"Divorce" is another area of protection whereby the government's involvement in marriage (specifically the ending of it) is desired, although everybody has different opinions of how it should be...
You see government entanglement and want to expand it to yet another segment of society (homosexuals), I see it and want to remove the entanglements for everybody.
I'm not sure why you want the government poking it's nose into your personal affairs.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:17 PM
Oftencold's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,681
Thanks: 9,837
Thanked 8,044 Times in 5,232 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman View Post
Thank you for articulating the specifics.

Marriage provides cohesion for family units. This is why homosexuals seek the rights of marriage under the law.
These would be special rights, of course. As I've pointed out, homosexuals have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Straights aren't allowed to have same-sex marriages either.

You know, the push for same-sex marriage has to be one or the worst PR campaigns in history. That's because of the instance on the use of the word, "marriage," which is freighted with tradition, history, religiosity and convention. If the gays had invented an identical institution with the same legal rights, the resistance would have been fractional.
__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”
Or if you're a traditionalist,
“Anál nathrach, orth’ bháis’s bethad, do chél dénmha!”
And children, say it like you mean it!

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:18 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,528
Thanks: 1,084
Thanked 3,819 Times in 2,587 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
Well, remkebe3r that that would have to include a ban on the recognition of marriage, which would cease to be a legal contract. In other words, no tax breaks,
Why should the mere fact that somebody is married entitle them to tax breaks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
and spouses would be required to testify against each other in criminal proceedings.
"I do not recall" is valid testimony and irrefutable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
And don't think for a minute that the State won't have a remedy for child custody disputes -- it will be that the State becomes the guardian in such cases. After all, the state can't rule on the dissolution of a non-contract.
Perhaps parents should determine child custody sans a court. My ex and I managed to accomplish it quite well without a court intervening.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:20 PM
dabateman's Avatar
Common Sense-Common Good
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,622
Thanks: 2,050
Thanked 8,175 Times in 4,772 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
These would be special rights, of course. As I've pointed out, homosexuals have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Straights aren't allowed to have same-sex marriages either.
These would not be special rights... these would be equal rights.

Quote:
You know, the push for same-sex marriage has to be one or the worst PR campaigns in history. That's because of the instance on the use of the word, "marriage," which is freighted with tradition, history, religiosity and convention. If the gays had invented an identical institution with the same legal rights, the resistance would have been fractional.
Separate but equal is not equal... so sayeth the Supreme Court.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Cash
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:22 PM
winston53660's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,061
Thanks: 634
Thanked 1,392 Times in 1,022 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
These would be special rights, of course. As I've pointed out, homosexuals have exactly the same marital rights as anyone else. Straights aren't allowed to have same-sex marriages either.
same =/= equal.

Quote:
You know, the push for same-sex marriage has to be one or the worst PR campaigns in history. That's because of the instance on the use of the word, "marriage," which is freighted with tradition, history, religiosity and convention. If the gays had invented an identical institution with the same legal rights, the resistance would have been fractional.
I know plenty of gays that are Christians and they considered themselves married in the eyes of God.

Weddings, Baptisms & Special Services
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:44 PM
Oftencold's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,681
Thanks: 9,837
Thanked 8,044 Times in 5,232 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat View Post
Why should the mere fact that somebody is married entitle them to tax breaks?
In more sane eras, when children weren't considered commodities, and when it was recognized that marriage produced other social benefits, such as restraining the natural short-term thinking of human males, official encouragement of marriage through such thins as tax breaks was considered a good return on investment.

Those quaint bygone years have little to recommend them, other than towering economic advances, prosperity, deep social stability, and lowerv tides of generalized insecurity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat View Post
"I do not recall" is valid testimony and irrefutable.
Actually, it's not. A judge can certainly hold a witness in contempt and chastise them is he does not believe that the witness' memory is so faulty.

I remember a case some years ago in Florida, in which a jaded judge refreshed the witness' memory in near-miraculous fashion by casually mentioning that under very old laws that had never been repealed, he could sentence a purgerer to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat View Post
Perhaps parents should determine child custody sans a court. My ex and I managed to accomplish it quite well without a court intervening.
Perhaps they should Perhaps they should also "suck it up" until the kids are grown. But we know that many will not.

Barring a marriage contract, the State can assert that the children are being abused simply by the fact that the two guardians are in conflict.

(The state will certainly soon come to the policy by usage that parents are provisional Guardians, and that the State, is always the Primary Guardian ((owner)) of all children.)

In any conflict, the State, from its point of view, will simply assert its rights as the true custodian of the children.

We must never lose sight of the fact that Humans tend to create Despotisms instinctively, and never be surprised when we see the process at work.
__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”
Or if you're a traditionalist,
“Anál nathrach, orth’ bháis’s bethad, do chél dénmha!”
And children, say it like you mean it!

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 06:55 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,528
Thanks: 1,084
Thanked 3,819 Times in 2,587 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
In more sane eras, when children weren't considered commodities, and when it was recognized that marriage produced other social benefits, such as restraining the natural short-term thinking of human males, official encouragement of marriage through such thins as tax breaks was considered a good return on investment.

Those quaint bygone years have little to recommend them, other than towering economic advances, prosperity, deep social stability, and lowerv tides of generalized insecurity.
Unfortunately, those quaint and bygone years have been replaced by a welfare state daddy that offers tax breaks to single parents.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
Actually, it's not. A judge can certainly hold a witness in contempt and chastise them is he does not believe that the witness' memory is so faulty.

I remember a case some years ago in Florida, in which a jaded judge refreshed the witness' memory in near-miraculous fashion by casually mentioning that under very old laws that had never been repealed, he could sentence a purgerer to death.
Failure to recall is not perjury. Nobody can force anybody to remember anything.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
Perhaps they should Perhaps they should also "suck it up" until the kids are grown. But we know that many will not.

Barring a marriage contract, the State can assert that the children are being abused simply by the fact that the two guardians are in conflict.

(The state will certainly soon come to the policy by usage that parents are provisional Guardians, and that the State, is always the Primary Guardian ((owner)) of all children.)

In any conflict, the State, from its point of view, will simply assert its rights as the true custodian of the children.

We must never lose sight of the fact that Humans tend to create Despotisms instinctively, and never be surprised when we see the process at work.
Such power in the hands of the state is just more proof that the state needs to be removed from the equation, as I pointed out earlier in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 07:07 PM
Oftencold's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,681
Thanks: 9,837
Thanked 8,044 Times in 5,232 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by dabateman View Post
These would not be special rights... these would be equal rights.



Separate but equal is not equal... so sayeth the Supreme Court.
As I've said many times before, that the case that gays don't have equal rights simply cannot be made rationally. Everyone has the right, when of age and unmarried to marry a willing and eligible member of the opposite sex.

Gays have this right too. Their complaint is that they are not allowed to marry the person that they would wish to marry. This argument may be approached rationally.

And the Supreme Court, having said that separate can never be equal, has gone on to support the inequalities of racial quotas, a progressive taxation, and affirmative action, thereby displaying a multiple personality profile.

Further, since men and women represent two actual poles of human physiognomy, it hardly seems that a unique institution joining these poles should be seen as in any way inappropriate or objectionable.
__________________
“Quod scripsi, scripsi"

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣

“Serpent's breath, charm of death and life, thy omen of making!”
Or if you're a traditionalist,
“Anál nathrach, orth’ bháis’s bethad, do chél dénmha!”
And children, say it like you mean it!

╠═════════════════════════════════════╣

Last edited by Oftencold; 02-13-2011 at 07:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 07:10 PM
dabateman's Avatar
Common Sense-Common Good
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 15,622
Thanks: 2,050
Thanked 8,175 Times in 4,772 Posts
Default Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
As said many times before, that the case that gays don't have equal rights simply cannot be made rationally. everyone has the right, when of age and unmarried to marry a willing and eligible member of the opposite sex.
Unfortunately the right to marry whom you are in love with/attracted to only applies to heterosexuals. And it is the emotional considerations that have been the primary discussion of court decisions and law making. So your assertion that it's equal is patently false.

Quote:
Gays have this right too. Their complaint is that they are not allowed to marry the person that they would wish to marry. This argument may be approached rationally.
Which is the right that was afforded by Loving and other SCOTUS decisions...

Quote:
And the Supreme Court, having said that separate can never be equal, has gone on to support the inequalities of racial quotas, a progressive taxation, and affirmative action, thereby displaying a multiple personality profile.
Though on the issue of fundamental rights, this is not the case.

Quote:
Further, since men and women represent two actual poles of human physiognomy, it hardly seems that a unique institution joining these poles should be seen as in any way inappropriate or objectionable.
There is no reason for two of the same polar inclination not to join either...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Cash
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2011, 07:12 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,098
Thanks: 6,925
Thanked 10,687 Times in 6,266 Posts
Post Re: Gay couples may soon be able to tie the knot in church

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat View Post
You see government entanglement and want to expand it to yet another segment of society (homosexuals), I see it and want to remove the entanglements for everybody.
I'm not sure why you want the government poking it's nose into your personal affairs.
It's amusing to see you say you aren't sure why I want these marital benefits / rights, but then you completely fail to address the point I made.

Can you address the issue I raised?
Maybe just try?

One of the marital rights / benefits / entanglements (as you put it) empowers a spouse to make medical decisions in case the other spouse is incapacitated.
We have similar legislation which allows family members similar powers, but typically the marital powers trumps the familial powers (which can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis).

If the government removes the marital "entanglements", that would leave the "family" to make such decisions with the spouse's powers removed...

Maybe a better question should be how you could just plain ignore that...
__________________
"The issue is not the size of government. The real issue is who the government is working for."
- Robert Reich
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
able, church, couples, gay, knot, may, soon, the, tie

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0