Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-12-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(26-12-2013 11:26 PM)PatThePoltergeist Wrote:  All the government does is add a contract to said marriage that legally binds the two parties together and gives certain rights and incentives to the same.

The US Government doesn't grant those default contractual terms for free. There is a "marriage penalty" when it comes tax time so there is often a financial disincentive. And the default contractual terms are generally with respect to community property, end of life, and estate decisions. All of which could be accomplished with proper Prenups, Power of Attorney, and Wills although those would cost more to prepare than a marriage license. Marriage license just shortcuts those with some default terms.

But the contractual terms ain't what Girly's almost 30 yo marriage is about. It's about a joint emotional commitment worth the added tax burden. Contracts are just so ... Consider ... sterile.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-12-2013, 06:15 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(28-12-2013 04:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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.

You ask questions with built-in assumptions. It is your style that prevents a productive discussion.

No one is born with an ideology. Maybe you don't know the difference between instincts and ideologies.Consider

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, 07:45 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(28-12-2013 04:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(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, ...

No no, that's not it. It's something more than that. The fuck you want to probe Girly's nether regions for anyway? I hope you got proper spelunking gear. God only knows the shit you gonna run into down there.

(28-12-2013 06:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is your style that prevents a productive discussion.

Yeah. That's it. The style is not only repetitively distractive, diluting and diminutive of the points, it's often counter-persuasive. Checkmate. Bitch.
...
Still like the guy though. ... Makes some interesting points as long as you put work gloves on first to avoid splinters. Tongue
[Image: gloves.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
29-12-2013, 11:35 AM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
(28-12-2013 06:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  You ask questions with built-in assumptions. It is your style that prevents a productive discussion.

The verbatim question I asked was this:

Quote: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?

There are no built-in assumptions. There's nothing in the style to prevent productive discussion. To the contrary, it applies the very issue we've been debating for months to this topic: Is the role of government to protect people against the use of force so everyone can exercise free will, or is it to initiate force and deny people free will? The gay marriage issue is a perfect example. Is it proper that so long as being gay was unacceptable to the ruling majority, such behavior is oppressed? Or, should the government defend each individual's right to life, liberty and happiness, even if that involves behavior the rest of society sees as deviant?

You replied: "I'd have to give it more thought to have an answer."...

But this _IS_ the whole issue we've been debating for months--it's the singular issue at the heart of every issue we've debated. If you haven't given it thought and don't have an answer, how can you be so sure that I'm wrong on every issue? Shouldn't you think it through with an open mind and come up with an educated response before attacking me? If you agree with me on the gay issue, namely that gay people shouldn't need cultural acceptance to have equal rights under the law, this has HUGE implications on every other issue we've been debating.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-01-2014, 11:45 PM
RE: Gay marriage argument over xmas. Am I mad?
Ok, long week over. Now I can relax a bit.

Thanks for correcting my whole "Marriage is a function of the church" line. But, I wasn't thinking about it the way it came out. Terminology and context are tricky subjects to master late at night after a long weekend of putting up with relatives. Maybe I should explain a bit better.

The original argument was from a religious standpoint and directed at a religious opponent. It wasn't my idea to base marriage on the church. My opponent made that claim. I was trying to break the religious logic behind politically opposing gay marriage by removing the word "marriage" from government dealings altogether. You say marriage is a religious idea that should be kept in line with scripture? Fine. We call what happens in the church "marriage" and we call the government side "civil unions". I fell into a terminology trap there.

Therefore, the church has marriage and can guard it all they want, while the rest of us can end the constant debating over equality. We can open the civil unions up to any consenting adult and run it however we like. We wouldn't even need to have one cookie cutter setup either. Lovers come together = option1, child rearing begins =option2, and so on. No matter what the purpose or status of the union is, we can freely make an option to accommodate it under this new civil union system. At the same time, the preacher can say "Those nasty sinners can make any contract they want. But it aint marriage. That is up to God!" You see what I'm saying?

"Your mind is twice a valuable as your body. And your ears are twice as valuable as your mouth. People will pay you based on which you use." - A very smart old lawyer
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: