Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 211 of 243 (352212)
09-25-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2006 4:52 PM


Do you think its a bit shaky to just lump the word gay into the already existing marriage laws?
Heheheh... take a look at the law books for any state, even those related to marriage issues alone. Allowing gays to marry won't make it any more lumpier than it already is. People have a point when they say if people really want to defend the concept of marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.
Don't you think there is a better way?
Yes, and berb has already answered it. We've had a lot of back and forth on it and I definitely agree blank civil unions are the best answer, with people holding their own religious services as they see fit.
I think you replied to him to ask what would happen to things currently addresses to "marriage"? They laws could simply recognize all mention of marriage in other laws to apply to civil unions, and all previous marriage certificates to be equal to civil union certs.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2006 4:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 243 (352213)
09-25-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Silent H
09-25-2006 4:56 PM


holmes writes me:
quote:
One can argue that gays don't necessarily have to have children...
They will, one way or another. Seems to me the solution would be to designate one party as the legal equivalent of a maternal parent.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 4:56 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 5:28 PM berberry has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 243 (352214)
09-25-2006 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by berberry
09-25-2006 5:20 PM


You see, I don't really care to deny gay people rights nor if they get rights. I just don't like the liberal, and careless, approach of calling everything marriage when there are a lot of laws with marriage written into them them that were considering only heterosexual marriages when they were written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 5:20 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 5:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 226 by nator, posted 09-25-2006 6:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 243 (352215)
09-25-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2006 5:24 PM


I would have waited quite a bit longer before I accused you of being homophobic about it. You seemed to me to be reaching for a fair solution so I proposed one. I'm delighted you liked it.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2006 5:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2006 5:28 PM berberry has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 243 (352216)
09-25-2006 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Silent H
09-25-2006 5:16 PM


In Loving they could very well point...
Ah, sorry. I thought you were pointing to a "nobody's being denied a right someone else has" argument. I'm doing this at work, occasionally in a hurry... that paragraph of your post got a bit rushed, and I got the meaning wrong. For that, I honestly apologize.
Regardless, I'm not aware of any official codification of marriage as man/woman in the US government. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that why DOMA and such are being introduced? To provide that codification?
Uh, you essentially just tried to bring hypocrisy in as an issue yourself.
Whenever I bring hypocrisy into an argument, it's to show a person that their line of reasoning is wrong. Given your history on this board, I didn't think you'd be bringing up polygamy and child marriage to show that the reasoning behind them was wrong.
If you could be shown to be a hypocrite, and argued for ability to enforce such hypocrisy, then CS could argue for that same ability.
True. Fair enough.
Yeah, we don't have to get into it as we can use more obvious examples like polygamy and incest.
Okay. I have no problem with polygamy and incest. The latter gimme the jibblies, but that's no reason to deny it to people.
However I will note that minors are not prohibited from entering contracts with the consent of their parents, that is all except marriage contracts.
True.
I'd also add that isn't really comparable with restrictions on voting, or things like driving. Those are restrictions on freedoms where the activity directly effects the well being of others. That is not the same for marriage.
*shrugs* Okay, replace it with the drinking age.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.
Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 5:16 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 5:38 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 216 of 243 (352217)
09-25-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by berberry
09-25-2006 5:24 PM


Seems to me the solution would be to designate one party as the legal equivalent of a maternal parent.
I agree, but then that brings us back to the same kinds of issues you brought up as a possible problem for polygamists.
I guess I never understand the arguments that having to do such a thing (create new legal definitions to cover a new situation) should be considered a bar to any freedom. Is it that people are so stupid they can't come up with a proper solution? If that's not the case then go ahead with the freedom and we'll deal with legal solution.
Looks like we're getting CS to accept civil unions... ahhhhhh, solutions.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 5:24 PM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2006 5:32 PM Silent H has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 243 (352218)
09-25-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by berberry
09-25-2006 5:26 PM


I would have waited quite a bit longer before I accused you of being homophobic about it.
Shit....the typical liberal attitude is that if I don't agree with them on gay marriage then I hate gay people. They're really annoying. (ABE: the liberals, that is)
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 5:26 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 227 by nator, posted 09-25-2006 7:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 243 (352221)
09-25-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Silent H
09-25-2006 5:28 PM


I guess I never understand the arguments that having to do such a thing (create new legal definitions to cover a new situation) should be considered a bar to any freedom.
I don't get it either!
Looks like we're getting CS to accept civil unions
Its not soley from you guys but you are helping

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 5:28 PM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 243 (352222)
09-25-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2006 5:28 PM


Try to be patient with them, CS. If you had jumped into one of these gay marriage threads soon after the last election I'd have bitten your head off from the first post. We gays were demonized mercilessly by right-wingers during that campaign and our nerves were raw (not all of the right-wingers of course, there are the odd Neil Boortz's around, but they didn't speak up much). Some of us just associated any opposition as coming straight from a Santorum-type bigot. It took a while to get over it, and some of us still haven't gotten over it. So please, just be patient.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2006 5:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 5:43 PM berberry has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 220 of 243 (352223)
09-25-2006 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Dan Carroll
09-25-2006 5:27 PM


Regardless, I'm not aware of any official codification of marriage as man/woman in the US government. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that why DOMA and such are being introduced?
On the state level there are some (can't remember number) which codify marriage as man/woman. On the Fed level I don't think there are any marriage laws per se, but there are laws which relate to those that are married and tend to be written with a concept of man/woman.
DOMA was meant to assure the the Fed gov't would not be forced to accept any state or foreign gay marriages, as well as protect other states from having to do the same.
The latter gimme the jibblies, but that's no reason to deny it to people.
Heheheh... okay I'm gonna give ya the needle. If anyone said gays give them the jibblies, would you consider them a homophobe? I bring this up only because it has been brought up elsewhere as a question.
In any case you made it sound cute. Jibblies. Yessir I like it.
*shrugs* Okay, replace it with the drinking age.
Heheheh... kids can drink with the permission of their parents. Remember in some churches kids don't just get grape juice, they drink BLOOD!!!... oh, I meant wine.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-25-2006 5:27 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-25-2006 7:15 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 221 of 243 (352224)
09-25-2006 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by berberry
09-25-2006 5:36 PM


We gays were demonized mercilessly by right-wingers during that campaign and our nerves were raw
What is your opinion of "log cabin" republicans? And if you know much about them, what is their proposed solutions for gay marriage, as well as dealing with the far right of their party?
I don't know much about them myself, but always wondered how they could stomach the party. I'm not sure if Cheney's kid was considered one or not, but I know I couldn't stomach her.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 5:36 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 6:07 PM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 243 (352230)
09-25-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Silent H
09-25-2006 5:43 PM


holmes asks me:
quote:
What is your opinion of "log cabin" republicans?
Oh God, where do I begin!?! I suppose by saying that I've voted republican in the past myself, but that was long ago and it's not likely to happen again any time soon.
They claim to stand absolutely in favor of gay marriage. Some of them, like Andrew Sullivan (although he abandoned them last election and voted for Kerry), are quite articulate in arguing the case. In fact, it was Sullivan who was the first I remember making a strong case for gay marriage. It was in a piece for Time magazine back when Clinton had taken office and was pushing for gays in the military. Sullivan argued, quite persuasively, that marriage should come first. Once that was accomplished, he felt that military service and other equality issues would fall into place over time with little resistance.
I think their numbers have dwindled since 2004, but I don't know for sure. I don't pay much attention to them, although I do check Sullivan's blog from time to time.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 5:43 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 6:11 PM berberry has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 223 of 243 (352231)
09-25-2006 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by berberry
09-25-2006 6:07 PM


although he abandoned them last election and voted for Kerry
Well that may go to show that the guy was actually a conservative. No one that voted for Bush in 2004 voted conservative. Kerry was closer to that traditional platform.
Sullivan argued, quite persuasively, that marriage should come first. Once that was accomplished, he felt that military service and other equality issues would fall into place over time with little resistance.
I'd have liked to see that argument. I don't understand it myself.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 6:07 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by berberry, posted 09-25-2006 6:20 PM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 243 (352232)
09-25-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Silent H
09-25-2006 6:11 PM


Andrew Sullivan
holmes writes me:
quote:
I'd have liked to see that argument. I don't understand it myself.
Yeah, I wish I'd saved it. But you know how magazines are, you read 'em and toss 'em.
It was a kind of "other side of the mountain" argument, as I recall. Sullivan felt that marriage would be the hardest mountain of all to climb, but that once we'd climbed it we'd have only to go downhill from there.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Silent H, posted 09-25-2006 6:11 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 243 (352237)
09-25-2006 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2006 4:43 PM


quote:
now that I think back on the situation, I think it would be easier for a couple dudes to sham marriage than him and some girl.
Hmm. Sounds like another reason to be for gay marriage -- to make it easier to get around stupid and ridiculous laws.
Okay, I'll be quiet now.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Included missing quote.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2006 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024