City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If you want to deal with math though, answer me this. Does the value of the number "5" somehow change if I call it "go" instead of "five"? I would submit that the value of the number would be equal in both cases, despite the change in nomenclature.

It's more than a change in nomenclature.

They are very different by definition, where marriages are a more restricted form. It's like real versus whole numbers.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

How can something be equal if it is different?

Just because things are different does not automatically make them unequal.

I recall how segregationist justified their position on the doctrine, "separate but equal" -- is this how you justify your position?

[Drake Tungsten]

I recall how segregationist justified their position on the doctrine, "separate but equal" -- is this how you justify your position?

Yes. I'm not going to let a strained comparison to segregationists scare me away from what I view as the most pragmatic course of action. There's no sense in overthrowing the definition of marriage when you can give homosexuals equal rights with a different form of union.

[MrFun]

Ok, I can accept that as a legitimate position -- even if I disagree with it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yes. I'm not going to let a strained comparison to segregationists scare me away from what I view as the most pragmatic course of action. There's no sense in overthrowing the definition of marriage when you can give homosexuals equal rights with a different form of union.

So you find it acceptable that a religious doctrine is unabashedly backed by the government?

[DanS]

The question that I have is whether gays value social acceptance or legal recognition more. The tactics to achieve each of these sometimes work against the other.

[Drake Tungsten]

So you find it acceptable that a religious doctrine is unabashedly backed by the government?

It's not religious doctrine; it's a customary definition of marriage that has been in place for generations.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's not based on religious doctrine; it's based on a customary definition of marriage that has been in place for generations.

It is most certainly based on a religious doctrine, as its supporters frequently prove with their references to the bible. It's also extremely likely that if a person opposes gay marriages, they are religious. It's also apparent to anyone with half a clue that the reason it's "customary" is because the US is, by and large, a Christian nation with Christian customs. A "been in place for generation" is no excuse for non-action, if it was we'd never change a thing. We'd still have slavery. Women could not vote...

[Drake Tungsten]

It's also apparent to anyone with half a clue that the reason it's "customary" is because the US is, by and large, a Christian nation with Christian customs.

What's your point? The fact that the current societal definition of marriage is rooted in Judeo-Christian moral thought (as are many other aspects of American society) does not make it a "religious doctrine" anymore than proscriptions against murder can be viewed as some sort of Christian conspiracy.

A "been in place for generation" is no excuse for non-action,

I never said it was. It does explain why large sections of the American populace are opposed to gay marriage, however, an opposition that could turn ugly if social change is carried out via judicial fiat as opposed to more democratic measures.

[DanS]

Asher, that's not true. Religion has dressed itself up with marriage, but the institution itself has been around for thousands of years in societies very far removed from judaism and christianity.

[Asher]

Originally posted by DanS
Asher, that's not true. Religion has dressed itself up with marriage, but the institution itself has been around for thousands of years in societies very far removed from judaism and christianity.

Thanks for proving my point -- religions were the ones that defined it between man and woman.

[DanS]

As far as I know, marriage in the Western World is an Ancient Greco-Roman institution. Perhaps it even goes further back. I don't remember that religion was particularly involved. Of course, in the US, religion has been decreasingly involved in sanctioning marriages.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the bible says a man cant lie with a man the way he lies with a woman. what about woman on woman?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm pretty sure God approves of that. He is a man, after all.

[Ben Kenobi]

marriage is a contract between individuals, or individuals and their church.

LoA:

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

Finally, why should the state provide benefits, if this is merely a private contract?

[Ben Kenobi]

Strawmen indeed, Bennyboy.

Sorry.

I had to take off.

Strawman to JohnT, not to you.

[David Floyd]

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

Finally, why should the state provide benefits, if this is merely a private contract?

If I can speak for myself, I quite agree. The state should neither restrict marriage nor provide benefits for marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
LoA:

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

This argument of yours has been shot down by others, namely NYE as I recall.

Polygamy exploits people.

[Drake Tungsten]

Polygamy exploits people.

I'd love to see the proof for this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Duhhh... and the state chooses to only recogise different sex marriages, not same sex... again, second class treatment.

That's not really the issue here. I wanted other examples of how homosexuals are treated by law as second-class citizens. None of your points stand to scrutiny.

I know... but you still won't let them get married... second class treatment.

Would you force churches to marry two men to each other?

Again... you asked for second class treatment examples... not on whether gay marriage will solve it.

Second class treatment already targetted by laws. Fez talks about steps. Steps to ensure equality. Now, if in law they are already accorded equal treatment, then this is a salient point.

But that doesn't stop it from happening in the first place and is second class treatment.

Again, laws cannot prevent something from occurring, they can only deter. The fact that the state deters is a provision of equality. Another salient point.

Not if somebody outs them... plus, it's second class treatment that special rules are applied to them.

Agreed. People who out them ought to be kicked out themselves. Preferences ought to have no bearing on one's occupation.

Good... you admit that your usual argument that it will effect straight marriages is a crock...

No. I merely admit that not all problems with marriage can be traced to homosexuality.

All I can do is speculate on the effects of marriage, and frankly, all I see are negative effects. Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by marrying homosexuals?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'd love to see the proof for this one.

Do you lack any common sense at all?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because it's simply a different societal status, even then.

And this is the ultimate tragedy, Asher.

Regardless of what you call it, be it marriage or civil unions, or if you are given equal benefits, you cannot force society to give gay marriages equal standing. That is outside the realm of law, and the provisions of government.

You will receive everything yet gain nothing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you lack any common sense at all?

Appeals to "common sense" usually mean that someone has no proof whatsoever...

Anyway, common sense would dictate that some polygamous relationships are exploitative and some are not. I don't see what gives you (or the state) the right to deny these people the right to the same union that you would give to homosexual couples.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Polygamy exploits people.

So? The state does not prevent one business from signing an unequal contract, providing the contract meets with the approval of all party.

[David Floyd]

Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by marrying homosexuals?

Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by allowing YOU to marry? No? Then I guess it's OK to stop you from marrying!

[David Floyd]

BK,

So? The state does not prevent one business from signing an unequal contract

Not that it's relevant, but the state does prohibit "unconscionable" contracts or clauses within contracts. Haven't studied the UCC lately, though, so I can't elaborate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by allowing YOU to marry?

Thank you DF.

Now you see why that is an unfair question.

Thank you very much.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fez talks about steps. Steps to ensure equality.

I did? I want a total reworking of the laws. Not steps. I want something now. I want action now and I want you anti-gay rights people out of the way of the constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

This move is a step towards equal rights that have for a long time have been denied to us GLB people.

These, I believe are your words, are they not?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


These, I believe are your words, are they not?

Oops. I didn't mean step. I mean a plan of action. Well the start of a plan of action. We cannot stop there.