Political Wrinkles

Political Wrinkles (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/)
-   Civil Rights & Abortion (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights-abortion/)
-   -   The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage... (http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/civil-rights-abortion/22006-dumbest-argument-against-gay-marriage.html)

dabateman 09-14-2011 05:37 AM

The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Random Idiot
I don't know why you're complaining, you already have the same rights as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can only marry someone of the opposite sex and so can you. See, no difference.

:rolls

This douchebag is obviously either too dense to understand the most basic compulsions of human nature, or is simply trying to avoid the obvious truth glaring in their face.

Every single time I hear this argument, it comes from someone who will never see the light. It always the blowhard that does everything they can do to skirt the nuances of legal marriage. These are generally the same people who make every attempt to differentiate between the genders for fear that they might be given attributes of the wrong gender.

The truth of the matter is that homosexuals DO NOT have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Oh sure, you can make the claim that the laws require a person to marry someone of the opposite sex. That (generally speaking) is absolutely true. What that claim fails to mention is that the law, on face, discriminates based on gender (a suspect class as defined by the Supreme Court). Beyond discriminating based upon gender, it fails to state the obvious. HETEROSEXUAL MEN WANT TO MARRY HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN AND VICE-VERSA. So because heterosexual men want to marry heterosexual women, the law is designed to benefit them. Allowing them to marry the person that they are attracted to. Allowing them to marry the person they love. Allowing them to share in the benefits afforded to a marriage such as property rights and rights to insurance coverage or benefits.

We need to take a minute and examine how the law is being used. Why are heterosexuals getting married? Generally because they have fallen in love with their partner and want to build a home with them. How fundamentally is this motivation different than homosexuals? It isn't.

Does marriage have a religious connotation? Not anymore. Who is to blame? Heterosexuals. Brittney Spears, Elizabeth Taylor, the list goes on and on.

Marriage, by all recent polling, is a dying institution. Preventing people from joining isn't the way to revive it. If you want to preserve marriage, then encourage it amongst those who WANT to marry. The number of heterosexuals wanting to get out of their marriage or never get marriage is climbing as is the number of homosexuals who want to get married.

Perhaps people should get off their high horse and allow homosexuals to marry so that we can show our children that marriage and family creation and family bonding is fundamental to our society ACROSS THE BOARD.

[/rant]

Oftencold 09-14-2011 06:08 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Question: many, probably most sates allow homosexuals to get civil unions and live together. As I understand it, this arrangement provides all the legal benefits of marriage in most of those States, except that the contacts don't get to legally call themselves married. So what's the problem, other than a demand for recognition?

I admit that my knowledge of civil unions is limited.

dabateman 09-14-2011 06:14 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold (Post 345182)
Question: many, probably most sates allow homosexuals to get civil unions and live together.

False.

Quote:

As I understand it, this arrangement provides all the legal benefits of marriage in most of those States, except that the contacts don't get to legally call themselves married.
False.

Quote:

So what's the problem, other than a demand for recognition?
Threefold.

1) Civil Unions do NOT provide the same legal benefits as marriage.
2) Creating Civil Unions creates (has created) a separate treatment status that claims to be "equal".
3a) Having a separate treatment status ENSURES inequality.
3b) The very existence of separate "facilities" precludes the possibility equality. Only 1 can equal 1. 2 can never equal 1 and 1 can never equal 2.

Quote:

I admit that my knowledge of civil unions is limited.
Immensely.

Oftencold 09-14-2011 06:21 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman (Post 345184)
False.



False.



Threefold.

1) Civil Unions do NOT provide the same legal benefits as marriage.
2) Creating Civil Unions creates (has created) a separate treatment status that claims to be "equal".
3a) Having a separate treatment status ENSURES inequality.
3b) The very existence of separate "facilities" precludes the possibility equality. Only 1 can equal 1. 2 can never equal 1 and 1 can never equal 2.



Immensely.

So what about other social institutions. Suppose I want to be legally declared the brother of a person in one family, to which I have no blood ties. That could conceivably make me the next of kin to someone.

Shall we demand that that relationship be redesigned for my benefit?

And what if someone decides that they don't wish to be defined as an adult, but want the law to view them as a child. Are we then compelled to rewrite that social definition to accommodate this person?

dabateman 09-14-2011 06:38 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold (Post 345186)
So what about other social institutions.

I don't give two craps about other social institutions. Legal institutions? Sure.

Quote:

Suppose I want to be legally declared the brother of a person in one family, to which I have no blood ties.

That could conceivably make me the next of kin to someone.

Shall we demand that that relationship be redesigned for my benefit?
First, your brother has no special rights/benefits/responsibilities that are not available to anyone else via law. Second, no one gets to select their siblings. Equal application of the law.

Quote:

And what if someone decides that they don't wish to be defined as an adult, but want the law to view them as a child. Are we then compelled to rewrite that social definition to accommodate this person?
Now you're getting silly. First, there is no comparison to marriage at all in your version age analysis, however it works to my benefit. One ages as a natural function of life. The state recognizes that. One selects a partner with which to spend their life based upon several factors, among them sexual attraction, personality compatibility, and the like. The state recognizes that for heterosexuals, but not for homosexuals. And if the state DOES happen to recognize that for homosexuals, it is never given equal recognition as heterosexuals.

Oftencold 09-14-2011 06:58 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman (Post 345188)
I don't give two craps about other social institutions. Legal institutions? Sure.



First, your brother has no special rights/benefits/responsibilities that are not available to anyone else via law. Second, no one gets to select their siblings. Equal application of the law.



Now you're getting silly. First, there is no comparison to marriage at all in your version age analysis, however it works to my benefit. One ages as a natural function of life. The state recognizes that. One selects a partner with which to spend their life based upon several factors, among them sexual attraction, personality compatibility, and the like. The state recognizes that for heterosexuals, but not for homosexuals. And if the state DOES happen to recognize that for homosexuals, it is never given equal recognition as heterosexuals.

Actually, a brother, if next-of-kin, can make any of the major medical decisions, and inherit as a spouse would.

And I think that most people would agree the gender is a "natural function of life."

You mention too that one does not get to choose one's siblings. (I some adoption cases people do, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.)

So, if nature decrees that I am born to family A, and thereby barred from being a sibling in family B, no matter that being a member of family B is my deepest desire, and I'm aflame with love for them, the law and Society decree that I cannot have this relationship and must abide by my lot.

And yet, nature has decreed a gender of persons too, with physical attribute consistent with that role. Law and Society have also codified and recognized the conditions for an institution recognizing that state.

Looked at another way, what is to stop some other movement from redefining the parent/child relationship, the nuclear family to accommodate some fashion of thought?

Are we to redefine every relationship and institution each and every generation as the currents of opinion alter?

dabateman 09-14-2011 07:10 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold (Post 345191)
Actually, a brother, if next-of-kin, can make any of the major medical decisions, and inherit as a spouse would.

Actually, as I stated before, the brother being able to make major medical decisions is not a right exclusive to being a brother. That right can be bestowed to anyone via a power of attorney. And a brother does NOT inherit as a spouse would. Assuming you died intestate, a brother is hella far down on the line of intestate succession. Assuming you wrote a will you could leave it to whomever. Either direction, the brother is NEVER treated as a spouse for tax purposes.

Quote:

And I think that most people would agree the gender is a "natural function of life."
Yes, but that does not mean gender = sexuality which is another natural function of life.

Quote:

You mention too that one does not get to choose one's siblings. (I some adoption cases people do, but we'll leave that aside for the moment.)
Well that's rare and they aren't legally making the decision to adopt the sibling so again, it's not really their choice.

Quote:

So, if nature decrees that I am born to family A, and thereby barred from being a sibling in family B, no matter that being a member of family B is my deepest desire, and I'm aflame with love for them, the law and Society decree that I cannot have this relationship and must abide by my lot.
You can marry into that family unless all of the available partners are male. :rolls But no one has ever been able to choose who their siblings are. So the argument doesn't hold ANY water. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Quote:

And yet, nature has decreed a gender of persons too, with physical attribute consistent with that role. Law and Society have also codified and recognized the conditions for an institution recognizing that state.
Yeah, nature has decreed sexuality as well that may or may not meet your idea of what it should be in light of the gender of the person with that particular sexuality. So your point? When you have codified it into the law, it becomes subject to equal treatment analysis.

Quote:

Looked at another way, what is to stop some other movement from redefining the parent/child relationship, the nuclear family to accommodate some fashion of thought?
Heterosexuals are already doing that by opting out of marriage. Don't blame the gays who are trying their damnedest to reinforce the idea of a nuclear family by creating a family through marriage.

Quote:

Are we to redefine every relationship and institution each and every generation as the currents of opinion alter?
Marriage has already be subject to such and has over years changed and developed and morphed with every generation.

Women went from being little more than property, to being legally equal. Marriage no longer was tailed to the man, the woman had property rights as well. Women began working and earning income just like the men. Whites married blacks. Protestants married Catholics.

This reduction of marriage to a union between two people who are in love and want to create a family is an accumulation of heterosexual endeavors. Don't blame us for demanding the same rights and benefits you get when you've shown that marriage is malleable.

1069 09-14-2011 07:40 AM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Same argument which was applied to the pre-civil rights anti-miscegenation laws: blacks have the same rights as whites. They can marry someone of their own race, as can whites. That's fair. :rolls

Well, guess what? No, it's not. And the government intervened and changed it, despite the fact that the majority of Americans didn't want it changed at the time.
We do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic.
The majority does not have to agree that a group should have equal rights, in order for the government to afford them equal rights... at gunpoint, if need be.

But just in case majority opinion is important to some, I believe we've just about reached the tipping point on same-sex marriage, where the majority is in favor of legalizing it. Not that it will matter, ultimately, but it's nice to know that majority opinion- as well as the law- is on our side.

crazyflamingos 09-14-2011 05:11 PM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold (Post 345182)
Question: many, probably most sates allow homosexuals to get civil unions and live together.

Actally it is about ten states. Hardly "many."

Quote:


As I understand it, this arrangement provides all the legal benefits of marriage in most of those States, except that the contacts don't get to legally call themselves married.
You are mistaken. The state mandated rights conveyed fall far short of marriage rights in most states and no Federal rights are conveyed by civil unions.


Quote:

So what's the problem, other than a demand for recognition?.
Lack of recognition is the problem. Legal recognition, that is.
Quote:

I admit that my knowledge of civil unions is limited.
Why, since you seem so interested?

Bodo 09-14-2011 05:36 PM

Re: The Dumbest Argument Against Gay Marriage...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman (Post 345179)
:rolls

This douchebag

I stopped reading after this.

Get a grip dude :(


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0