Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2013, 09:46 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 07:38 AM)BnW Wrote:  Regardless of how it started or what the religious overtones may be, the fact is that mariage conveys certain legal rights to people and denying those same rights to gay people is discrmination, period. Out of this debate I've seen people start to argue that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. Ok, fair enough, but the fact is that they are. And, for as long as they are they should not be picking and choosing who should be able to get married. The right and the privileges should be afforded to all citizens equally. That's what is at issue here. The rest of it is window dressing.

Government and the legal system have always been involved in marriage. Marriage was a business transaction and the legal system kept you from going back on your word. While divorce is legal now, it still involves a long process of splitting assets. The church has tried to hijack marriage and act as though it originated as some holy ceremony. For people to say that government should not be I involved in marriage is ridiculous if marriage is going to come with privileges that people would otherwise not have under the law.

Right wing idiots can scream bloody murder all they want about marriage and religion. Their churches can still choose whether or not they will allow gays to be married in their church, so there is no infringment on religious rights there. They need to realize that they have absolutely no right to make the rules for the rest of the country based on their religious beliefs. One of their ways around this that they are trying to pull is to say that it should be up to the states whether or not to legalize gay marriage. That is just more bullshit, because all they are trying to do is keep gay marriage illegal in the red states. It should not be left up to state governments to decide on whether a person is allowed their civil rights. Saying that the legality of gay marriage should be a state decision is like saying that segregation should be a state decision. Discriminating against somebody because they are gay is no different than discriminating against somebody for the color of their skin.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
27-12-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 09:46 AM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 07:38 AM)BnW Wrote:  Regardless of how it started or what the religious overtones may be, the fact is that mariage conveys certain legal rights to people and denying those same rights to gay people is discrmination, period. Out of this debate I've seen people start to argue that the government should not be involved in marriage at all. Ok, fair enough, but the fact is that they are. And, for as long as they are they should not be picking and choosing who should be able to get married. The right and the privileges should be afforded to all citizens equally. That's what is at issue here. The rest of it is window dressing.

Government and the legal system have always been involved in marriage. Marriage was a business transaction and the legal system kept you from going back on your word. While divorce is legal now, it still involves a long process of splitting assets. The church has tried to hijack marriage and act as though it originated as some holy ceremony. For people to say that government should not be I involved in marriage is ridiculous if marriage is going to come with privileges that people would otherwise not have under the law.

Right wing idiots can scream bloody murder all they want about marriage and religion. Their churches can still choose whether or not they will allow gays to be married in their church, so there is no infringment on religious rights there. They need to realize that they have absolutely no right to make the rules for the rest of the country based on their religious beliefs. One of their ways around this that they are trying to pull is to say that it should be up to the states whether or not to legalize gay marriage. That is just more bullshit, because all they are trying to do is keep gay marriage illegal in the red states. It should not be left up to state governments to decide on whether a person is allowed their civil rights. Saying that the legality of gay marriage should be a state decision is like saying that segregation should be a state decision. Discriminating against somebody because they are gay is no different than discriminating against somebody for the color of their skin.

I just cannot like this post enough. If only you could hit the *like* button as many times as you wished.

ThumbsupThumbsupThumbsup

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
27-12-2013, 08:20 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 09:46 AM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  For people to say that government should not be I involved in marriage is ridiculous if marriage is going to come with privileges that people would otherwise not have under the law.

Agreed. But I don't feel that there SHOULD be 'special privileges' under the law for people who are married. Say a young woman is going to college, becomes pregnant, and doesn't want an abortion, but doesn't have someone to marry either. So, she and her mother agree to raise the child together, and live together as a family, and they choose to enter into a voluntary contract where they agree that all assets are co-mingled and to be split equally. They want to each have joint custody of the child, automatic transfer of assets on the death of either one to the other, etc. In other words, they want the SAME privileges under the law as any married couple. Who are we to say that the lesbian couple across the street, because they have a sexual relationship, should be granted these privileges, but this mother and daughter, who have the same level of commitment, should be second-class citizens, and their family unit be deemed invalid, and lacking the same privileges and rights under law, just because their relationship is not sexual? To me, it's barbaric that the government is deciding what is and is not a family unit, and still maintains that a valid family must contain two adults who have sex together. IMO, marriage is simply a voluntary contract, and any and all consenting adults should be able to enter into this contract and agree to co-mingle assets, have joint custody over children, and agree to rules of separation (ie "divorce").

Your argument that "Government and the legal system have always been involved in marriage" is simply wrong. In the US, in the 18th century, in most states government played no role in marriage, other than that the government enforced the terms of a 'marriage contract' just like they would any other voluntary contract between consenting adults provided all parties agreed to such enforcement. However, two people could stipulate whatever they wanted as far as the terms and conditions of their union, and it wasn't the government's business what rights they did and did not have. The system worked fine, and it wasn't changed because there was a problem with it, it was changed for pretty evil reasons that, imo, are not valid (like eugenics).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 09:14 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 08:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 09:46 AM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  For people to say that government should not be I involved in marriage is ridiculous if marriage is going to come with privileges that people would otherwise not have under the law.

Agreed. But I don't feel that there SHOULD be 'special privileges' under the law for people who are married. Say a young woman is going to college, becomes pregnant, and doesn't want an abortion, but doesn't have someone to marry either. So, she and her mother agree to raise the child together, and live together as a family, and they choose to enter into a voluntary contract where they agree that all assets are co-mingled and to be split equally. They want to each have joint custody of the child, automatic transfer of assets on the death of either one to the other, etc. In other words, they want the SAME privileges under the law as any married couple. Who are we to say that the lesbian couple across the street, because they have a sexual relationship, should be granted these privileges, but this mother and daughter, who have the same level of commitment, should be second-class citizens, and their family unit be deemed invalid, and lacking the same privileges and rights under law, just because their relationship is not sexual? To me, it's barbaric that the government is deciding what is and is not a family unit, and still maintains that a valid family must contain two adults who have sex together. IMO, marriage is simply a voluntary contract, and any and all consenting adults should be able to enter into this contract and agree to co-mingle assets, have joint custody over children, and agree to rules of separation (ie "divorce").

Your argument that "Government and the legal system have always been involved in marriage" is simply wrong. In the US, in the 18th century, in most states government played no role in marriage, other than that the government enforced the terms of a 'marriage contract' just like they would any other voluntary contract between consenting adults provided all parties agreed to such enforcement. However, two people could stipulate whatever they wanted as far as the terms and conditions of their union, and it wasn't the government's business what rights they did and did not have. The system worked fine, and it wasn't changed because there was a problem with it, it was changed for pretty evil reasons that, imo, are not valid (like eugenics).

Marital law in the 18th and 19th centuries is difficult to compare to current practice as women had few legal or political rights then.

For example:
Quote:During most of American history, women’s lives in most states were circumscribed by common law brought to North America by English colonists. These marriage and property laws, or "coverture," stipulated that a married woman did not have a separate legal existence from her husband. A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave, and could not own property in her own name or control her own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children. Widows did have the right of "dower," a right to property they brought into the marriage as well as to life usage of one-third of their husbands’ estate. Though a married woman was not able to sue or sign contracts on her own, her husband often did have to obtain her consent before he sold any property his wife had inherited.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 09:25 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
@Chas,

What do you believe? Should any two or more consenting adults be able to form a family, regardless of the nature of their relationship, and have the same rights and privileges as traditional marriage? Or, should the majority be able to decide cultural norms and dictate what constitutes an approved marriage, and grant special privileges and rights to conforming couples?

It's another of asking if the role of government is to force the minority to comply with the will of the majority, or it it's to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 09:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas,

What do you believe? Should any two or more consenting adults be able to form a family, regardless of the nature of their relationship, and have the same rights and privileges as traditional marriage?

I'd have to give it more thought to have an answer.

Quote: Or, should the majority be able to decide cultural norms and dictate what constitutes an approved marriage, and grant special privileges and rights to conforming couples?

It's another of asking if the role of government is to force the minority to comply with the will of the majority, or it it's to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority.

The people decide, even in a representative democratic republic.
The legislatures create laws that may or may not be majority opinion. The courts sort out tyranny.

The role of government is to enact the will of the people in a just manner.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 10:28 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
@Chas, that view, while common, fails to pass the veil of ignorance test and violates many rules of morality. Consider...

(27-12-2013 09:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  The people decide, even in a representative democratic republic.

Democratic republic is an oxymoron to classic liberals, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and several others who drafted the constitution and decl of ind. In fact, the very meaning of the term 'inalienable rights' means the PEOPLE DO NOT DECIDE what rights individuals have. Their rights to life, liberty and property are NOT subject to the will of the people. The view among classic liberals was that "A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice." (link)
When Benjamin Franklin was asked if the US was a Democracy or a Republic, he said a Republic, showing the 2 meant different things to him. Therefore, _IF_ the US followed the classic liberal system of a republic, meaning it obeyed the rule of law (the constitution) the Federal government can ONLY exercise a small set of enumerated powers, all of which are defending individual liberties, even if the people want otherwise. It's the role of the Supreme Court to invalidate laws which go beyond those enumerated powers defined in the Constiution.

(27-12-2013 09:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  The legislatures create laws that may or may not be majority opinion. The courts sort out tyranny.

I disagree. The whole point of having 3 separate branches of government and a constitution is to decide unique roles. If the courts can decide what laws they like and don't like, they ARE in effect legislating from the bench. The courts are not supposed to decide if a law is good or tyrannical--they are supposed to enforce the laws. That's why the India court ruled gay sex was criminal, because the court cannot just toss out laws on the grounds that they are tyrannical. Now, in the US, the Supreme Court IS supposed to toss out laws if those laws go beyond the enumerated powers (ie if they're unconstitutional).

(27-12-2013 09:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  The role of government is to enact the will of the people in a just manner.

You can strike the 'in a just manner' since if government has the power to decide what is just, and the majority (aka "the people") control the government, then of course the government which imposes laws are going to insist they're just. Classic liberals, like Locke, Jefferson, Bastiat, etc., believe it's the opposite--the role of government is to protect the individual FROM the will of the people. Remember, liberal comes from the latin word liber, meaning free, and able to exercise one's free will. One does not have free will if he must get the ruling majority's approval to do something.

Also, consider the veil of ignorance, a classic test of morality where you look down upon a system and must decide the rules without knowing who you are in the system. A democracy, rule of the majority, violates this moral principle because you could never agree to that system behind a veil of ignorance since you don't know if you're in the majority, or a fringe minority. The only system that can be agreed upon behind a veil of ignorance is one where the government completely blocks the initiation of force by everyone (including the government itself) to ensure every individual can exercise free will. If the role of government is to initiate force, you wouldn't know behind a veil of ignorance if you were the one initiating the force or a victim of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
@Chas,

I'll try a simpler way. When you say: "The role of government is to enact the will of the people", by enact, you mean 'enforce', in other words, use threats of violence as coercion, correct? And what do you mean by 'the will of the people'? You can't mean the will of ALL the people, since they all don't have the same will. Therefore, your statement is actually: "The role of government is to enforce the will of one group of people, using threats of violence to coerce compliance". But that sounds tyrannical. And it is.

That's why you could not answer the question: "Should any two or more consenting adults be able to form a family, regardless of the nature of their relationship, and have the same rights and privileges as traditional marriage? Or, should the majority be able to decide cultural norms and dictate what constitutes an approved marriage, and grant special privileges and rights to conforming couples?" You can't pick the former because that would make you a libertarian. So you have to pick the latter, but in so doing, you're endorsing the oppression of gay people until they succeeded in gaining cultural acceptance.

This really does boil down to one issue: Does one group of people have the right to initiate force against another group? Everybody is born saying 'yes'. All children as well as animals instinctively use force to get what they want. A very small minority eventually switches sides and answer 'no', thus becoming classic liberal/libertarian. It really is a black & white issue, and everybody is on one side or the other. That question I asked you about gay marriage is a litmus test to see which side of the issue you're on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 03:01 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(27-12-2013 10:56 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas,

I'll try a simpler way. When you say: "The role of government is to enact the will of the people", by enact, you mean 'enforce', in other words, use threats of violence as coercion, correct? And what do you mean by 'the will of the people'? You can't mean the will of ALL the people, since they all don't have the same will. Therefore, your statement is actually: "The role of government is to enforce the will of one group of people, using threats of violence to coerce compliance". But that sounds tyrannical. And it is.

That's why you could not answer the question: "Should any two or more consenting adults be able to form a family, regardless of the nature of their relationship, and have the same rights and privileges as traditional marriage? Or, should the majority be able to decide cultural norms and dictate what constitutes an approved marriage, and grant special privileges and rights to conforming couples?" You can't pick the former because that would make you a libertarian. So you have to pick the latter, but in so doing, you're endorsing the oppression of gay people until they succeeded in gaining cultural acceptance.

This really does boil down to one issue: Does one group of people have the right to initiate force against another group? Everybody is born saying 'yes'. All children as well as animals instinctively use force to get what they want. A very small minority eventually switches sides and answer 'no', thus becoming classic liberal/libertarian. It really is a black & white issue, and everybody is on one side or the other. That question I asked you about gay marriage is a litmus test to see which side of the issue you're on.

You don't control the conversation, and you don't know what I think, so just fuck off with your abrasive, aggressive, presumptuous style.

I told you why I won't answer that question. I am thinking about its effect on society, its consequences. I, unlike you, am not a slave to an ideology.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 04:24 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(28-12-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  you don't know what I think

Then how come I continuously know what questions to ask that you will find impossible to answer? If you understood my position, why don't you do the same since I've already gone on record saying that if somebody asks me a question, and I'm backed into a corner and cannot answer, I will concede I'm wrong and the other person is right. So why not take me up on that offer, throw out your best question, and force me to either concede that you're right, or prove that I'm lying?

(28-12-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  fuck off with your abrasive, aggressive, presumptuous style.

The only reason I act that way is that I ask probing questions, and instead of engaging in a productive debate where both sides are willing to admit it when they're wrong, all I get is from you, cjlr, et al are "fuck off". That tells me you know there's something wrong with your thinking, but you can't admit it. Then I become aggressive because it's no longer a respectful, productive debate.

(28-12-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  I told you why I won't answer that question. I am thinking about its effect on society, its consequences. I, unlike you, am not a slave to an ideology.

It's the other way around. The whole reason WHY I have the ideology I do is BECAUSE I asked that question. Like everybody else, I was born with the instinct to use force against others to get what I want. However, when I was asked questions, like that one I asked you if the ruling majority should have the right to dictate cultural norms which minorities must comply with, I, like you, was unable to answer them. If I answered honestly, namely that, like you, I did believe one group had the right to use threats of violence to force another group to do something against their will, I could see how barbaric it was, and how nearly every manmade catastrophe in human history was caused by that attitude. But, if I answered 'no, nobody has the right to initiate violence against another', then that means my entire view of government, rule of law, culture and society had to change because the entire world we know is built upon the premise that whatever group has the power gets to wield the club and force others to comply. We're all taught from birth that the role of government is to coerce everyone into obeying laws created by the ruling group (ideally the majority). It's pounded into our heads in school and by society.

So, it's not like libertarians are slaves to ideology. It's the other way around. Because we WERE NOT slaves to the ideology which all of us were born with, we were willing to think out of the box and look at the world in a different way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: