Gay marraige and the end of the world

I don't know why I'm about to defend RR, but it looks to me like he is saying something different than what you or schraf are suggesting. I don't agree with his argument but it is not this... I think he sees that marriage can be more than mating of beasts, its just that relationships which will involve children have more reasons to be protected using the legal system.It seems to me there is a valid stance that in a nation whose other laws and codes are based off of legal contracts binding people for ownership it is more important that two people who wish to have offspring have such a contract than those who do not. There is less involved in the other relationships.And indeed for any society, or govt, they must be concerned about people procreating. Citizens must have children and be raised properly for the future of the society. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.Again, don't think that I support his position on marriage. I might even bother arguing with him if I thought it would make a difference. I'm just pointing out that his position is less odious than is being portrayed.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-15-2006 05:26 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Mating is the most common way to have kids, but I don't think RR was saying that people who are adopting don't need to get similar coverage.I'm not interested in debating the issue as it stands now. The concept of "protections" itself means accepting premises I wouldn't necessarily agree with. So we're a couple steps past my caring.I was just stating that it didn't seem RR's position was being accurately portrayed. If it matters, I do disagree with his position and do find the results of his argument to be arbitrary, if not discriminatory.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have heard the above statement before (by others) and it confuses me. What does "not on board" mean? Or how does it differ with Rat (or maybe someone less antagonistic) not "being on board" with gay marriage.It sounds to me like a cop out, and it raises serious doubts in my mind whether people that claim the above would have been for interracial relationships any more than plural marriage. What would have been the difference then, as to now? They were both banned, yet you could be on board with one despite being busy with gay marriage, yet can't now for the other?How much does it take to be "on board" with someone getting their rights, other than to simply not oppose any initiatives against those rights, and support any initiatives for such rights? It shouldn't take any more time out of your day than anything else you would be for. Obviously it would make sense that you wouldn't go out campaigning for such rights but that isn't what you'd want from conservatives on gay rights either, is it? You simply want them to get on board by not blocking, and instead throwing in support when they can at the voting booth, right?If a conservative said to you, they can't get on board with gay marriage right now because they are busy with other issues (perhaps religious speech rights issues), would that make sense to you? Despite the inconsistent arguments made here (it wasn't exclusively about gaining property, or the ownership of women), I agree with the above statement. Regardless of what it may have "been about" at any time, it has certainly changed over time. And there is a good question in why change itself is somehow wrong or harmful, given that its history is of change in meaning.I do agree as well that "marriage" might best be served by religious or other social institutions, but that is another topic. Assuming it is in the business, why can changes not be added, or why would they be harmful? This is something that tends to go unanswered by conservatives.But to bring this back around, if it is true about change, why do you (berb) not see that marriage shouldn't stop with monogamous marriage, especially as a lot of the world has it right now, and has had it through history? We are currently denying actual 100% married people from enjoying their rights.And if you can say "not yet, I'm busy", why can't conservatives say the same thing?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

??? The question is of being able to support any secondary issue right? That is a gay issue can trump some other issue, just as any other issue can trump any gay issue.It would not make any logical sense to say one should be able to support gay marriage even if they are currently working on religious issues, if a person can claim they do not have to support any other issue (including poly marriage) because they are currently working on gay marriage.I even said "other issues" and then suggested the possibility of an issue.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I understand what you are saying, but that does not answer the question I was asking, especially to berberry who is on record suggesting the blacks should not be unsupportive of gays fighting for equal rights, even though it is detrimental to their movement.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I understand your reasoning, but I find it a cop out. Rights are fought for or they are not. You support them or you do not. Saying I'll help a group oppress another if it will buy my group some space is perhaps strategic, but gutless (to me).As far as your reason why it is not compelling, if a person said they know no one in a gay relationship, and so are unconcerned, would that sit well with you as a reason for them not to say "okay, they should have that right"?Likewise you have recently been critical of blacks that are critical of gays latching on to their civil rights efforts, yet here you seem to defend that very attitude (stonewell/loving).Shouldn't all groups looking for freedom using the same criteria band together to create a block with a single agenda, rather than stabbing other groups in the back in order to "pass" inspection for Xians?And I might add that your very argument is self-defeating as it lends credence to what Xian leaders (even those in govt like Scalia) are saying. Once we have gay rights there will be calls for more rights from these other groups, and precedence to give it to them.Your only choice then is to tell these rabid fundamentalists that you promise not to help those others in the future, and only your group will get the rights others request, or to pretend that like you will stab the other group in the back and only to come out as a liar to the zealots instead... who will not take that lightly.Why is a forthright approach, not the most honest and worthy approach to human rights? Especially at the level we are currently discussing?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As tragic as it is, that does not add up to why gay marriage is important. If you don't think this kind of stuff happens in families where marriages and legal wills are in place, you need to do more research.Furthermore this issue did not involve just marriage but common-law marriage. This is a greater testament to how greedy and lawsuit happy people are and why people have to be very careful of what they put in place legally.Its unbelievable that the guy whose name everything was in did not protect his partner (business or otherwise), by having his partner's name as co-owner, or get a freaking witness signature on the will! To pass the buck onto society for that is a bit over the top.If they'd had a marriage license shy a witness signature, like they had left the will, the greedy bastard relatives could have still tried (and perhaps won) the same thing.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-18-2006 07:45 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well to be honest if he was just paying attention to you because you were straight and female, wouldn't that make him sexist?In any case, you have my attention... more pics please.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No really, it doesn't. The point I was making is that that specific situation would not likely have been effected by a marriage license, especially if they had pursued it in the half-ass manner that they had done everything else.If this was a case where they had done everything as they should have, and then greedy people were able to break it down because they weren't married, then that would be an argument for marriage.That's not what happened here at all. They did not do some of the simplest and most obvious things, like say put business and other licenses in both names. That alone would have prevented what occurred and did not require marriage at all, or even a will... its just straight business. And if the one guy who had everything in his name (for whatever reason that was thought smart) has simply made his will properly, this would also have likely gone differently.You are right some blood relatives can break wills, then again some wills can break blood relatives. This happens even in hetero marriages. It would have gone to court at least on equal grounds rather than throwing the one partner to the dogs.This was a tragic example of negligence on one hand, and greed on the other. I feel very sorry for the guy, and I even think he should have been able to get married if he had wanted to, but this tragedy did not outline the reason why. Was any of that in the article? No. Thus you cannot bring these cases up to say that the article suggests why gay marriage is important.Look I'm not saying I am against gay marriage or there are no reasons, I'm just saying that the tragic story here was of something totally different, and did not create an argument for gay marriage.If anything in that story could have been used to argue for why gay marriage shouldn't be opposed, and supported, its the story of their wonderful life together... not the tragedy faced by one partner after the death of the other because they were negligent in filling out forms.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)