The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[TRGTspecialist]

That is a fabulous image

 

[Dan]

That is a fabulous image

Since we're in this thread, you could say "Faaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous!!!"

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't think we can separate her commitment from her cause, because without the cause her commitment is meaningless.

And the iron ore in the ground may as well just be clay, because without a use it's null?

She is committed because of the cause.

I haven't seen that reported - and it's a detail that would need to be learned rather than assumed. People are different. Put two kids in a room where they will be completely bored, and one might just wait and wait for hours until someone comes to get them. The other might be burning the curtains within no time. The "idol hands......" adage really only applies to the second, but I think we need to ultimately see that energy as an untapped resource rather than simply and only condemn the actions.

She was doing the wrong thing and needed to be stopped. Done. Now, we can prattle on about how bad that was, or have an attitude that leaves room for, and even encourages, the conversion of the kind of moxie she exhibited in to something useful with these types of people.

 

[A2K78]

Many of you seem to be missing my point.. anyhow the problem isn't the photographers, Kim Davis or the bakers, but rather faceless government bureaucrats making up "rights".

 

[Joel]

Many of you seem to be missing my point.. anyhow the problem isn't the photographers, Kim Davis or the bakers, but rather faceless government bureaucrats making up "rights".

This isn't about whether or not marriage is a right, it's about whether or not equal protection under the law is a right. If you think equal protection under the law is a made up "right" I don't know how you'd call yourself a libertarian.

 

[FoolKiller]

This isn't about whether or not marriage is a right, it's about whether or not equal protection under the law is a right. If you think equal protection under the law is a made up "right" I don't know how you'd call yourself a libertarian.

His point, and one I agree with, is that none of this would matter if government weren't involved in things it shouldn't be.

To argue that government should do the right thing about things it shouldn't be doing anyway does seem kind of pointless.

I was actually hoping Rand Paul would have used this as a moment to stick to his "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" message and point out what happens when government gets involved in places it doesn't belong. Instead, he gave a non-committal response worded carefully to pander to religious conservatives while not saying he agrees with her.

In my personal life if I get asked about her I just say, "She shouldn't have that job anyway." The left thinks I'm commenting on her religion disqualifying her for the job and the right merely needs an extra sentence to realize what I mean.

 

[Danoff]

His point, and one I agree with, is that none of this would matter if government weren't involved in things it shouldn't be.

To argue that government should do the right thing about things it shouldn't be doing anyway does seem kind of pointless.

I was actually hoping Rand Paul would have used this as a moment to stick to his "government shouldn't be involved in marriage" message and point out what happens when government gets involved in places it doesn't belong.

...but... the government does need to recognize marriage contracts, even if it doesn't prescribe the contract itself. You can't completely remove government from the discussion of marriage, because the question of what constitutes a valid contract for legal purposes remains. Does the government recognize medical guardianship of a same-sex spouse? I suppose it almost doesn't matter if the government gets out of enough things it doesn't belong in. But we're far far away from that reality. In the meantime, the rule is equal protection for whatever the government is involved in.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Many of you seem to be missing my point.. anyhow the problem isn't the photographers, Kim Davis or the bakers, but rather faceless government bureaucrats making up "rights".

This kind-of follows on from @Danoff's point; but who should define what Marriage is? There seems to be a strong groundswell of disagreement with Kim Davis choosing the definition created by faceless (and possibly imaginary) historical biblical figures.

 

[FoolKiller]

...but... the government does need to recognize marriage contracts, even if it doesn't prescribe the contract itself. You can't completely remove government from the discussion of marriage, because the question of what constitutes a valid contract for legal purposes remains.

Contract law is not what is creating the issue though. If this was all just a matter of government enforcing contracts this wouldn't be an issue unless contract law was discriminatory across the board, in which case it would be a much bigger issue than marriage.

To make sure that all legal and financial standings passed to my wife when necessary I did not have to go to a courthouse and ask the government to approve of those contracts. I signed it, my lawyer signed it, and a notary public signed it. Boom done. It did not require that the person I passed this all to had any specific form of relation ship to me, or denied it in the case of any relationship. Contractual marriage can, and should, occur with zero government involvement.

In the meantime, the rule is equal protection for whatever the government is involved in.

While that is the case, getting stuck arguing across the aisle about what marriage should be and pushing aside this opportunity to point out why this problem even has the ability to exist, will result in nothing more than more opportunities for discrimination in the future. Making the people argue with each other hides the true problem. We think we have achieved something great by making a positive change in law after decades of protesting and arguing. We should be asking why this even needed to be a debate to begin with. From what readings I can find (PDF), it does appear that marriage regulation came about due to religious objections to common law marriage. It should be no surprise that religion was still affecting it centuries later.




I don't agree with @A2K78 that government made up rights. I think this is an issue of government being allowed to regulate rights they have no business being near.

 

[Danoff]

Contract law is not what is creating the issue though. If this was all just a matter of government enforcing contracts this wouldn't be an issue unless contract law was discriminatory across the board, in which case it would be a much bigger issue than marriage.

To make sure that all legal and financial standings passed to my wife when necessary I did not have to go to a courthouse and ask the government to approve of those contracts. I signed it, my lawyer signed it, and a notary public signed it. Boom done. It did not require that the person I passed this all to had any specific form of relation ship to me, or denied it in the case of any relationship. Contractual marriage can, and should, occur with zero government involvement.

I was kinda poking at IRS recognition, social security, health care, etc. etc. - all things that the government shouldn't be doing anyway. This is why I was saying maybe if the government got out of EVERYTHING that it wasn't supposed to be doing, the issue could just sink away. I largely agree with your post though.

 

[A2K78]

This kind-of follows on from @Danoff's point; but who should define what Marriage is? There seems to be a strong groundswell of disagreement with Kim Davis choosing the definition created by faceless (and possibly imaginary) historical biblical figures.

Anybody but government

 

[TenEightyOne]

Anybody but government

So you should have legal rights and tax breaks if you marry your mother? Or a watermelon? As long as you say that's a marriage then that's cool?

 

[Imari]

So you should have legal rights and tax breaks if you marry your mother? Or a watermelon? As long as you say that's a marriage then that's cool?

Everyone would immediately marry themselves.

I know I would, I love that guy. He's the greatest, and I can't imagine living my life without him. I think if I ever had to be apart from him, I'd just kill myself.

Free tax breaks and self-love for all!

 

[GTsail]

So you should have legal rights and tax breaks if you marry your mother? Or a watermelon? As long as you say that's a marriage then that's cool?

I'm not partial to watermelon marriages, but I think its possible that I already have a common-law marriage with Gran Turismo

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What's next, ghost and horse?

 

[Lizard]

So you should have legal rights and tax breaks if you marry your mother? Or a watermelon?

I bet someone tried to marry a watermelon before.

 

[Danoff]

I bet someone tried to marry a watermelon before.

Consummate for sure.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Consummate for sure.

 

[FoolKiller]

So you should have legal rights and tax breaks

If government isn't defining it then there are no tax breaks, nor should there be anyway. No clue why actually finding a mate is worthy of being rewarded in a discriminatory way. Legal rights will come with contract law.

if you marry your mother?

Two consenting adults? I don't care.

Or a watermelon?

Now you're just being rude, but if you want a watermelon to medical surrogate then that is fine. If you happen to die before it does then that goes to the next of kin, as per usual.




That said, really? How is what you just did any different from those opposed to homosexual marriage comparing it to incest, pedophilia, or bestiality? You knew what he meant, but you went there anyway.

Is it so hard for us to not stoop to the level of those we oppose?


I am secretly hoping you will tell me you were just trying to be funny and not actually adding anything to the conversation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That said, really? How is what you just did any different from those opposed to homosexual marriage comparing it to incest, pedophilia, or bestiality? You knew what he meant, but you went there anyway.

Is it so hard for us to not stoop to the level of those we oppose?

I am secretly hoping you will tell me you were just trying to be funny and not actually adding anything to the conversation.

I'm trying to establish who should be able to define what a person can call marriage and what kind of marriages could then be acceptable. Why is marrying a watermelon so different from marrying a tree?

 

[Danoff]

Why is marrying a watermelon so different from marrying a tree?

...look, just because she's skinny does not mean she's a tree.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm trying to establish who should be able to define what a person can call marriage and what kind of marriages could then be acceptable.

I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure that it is perfectly understood that we are all talking about humans.

Why is marrying a watermelon so different from marrying a tree?

Why is this so different to comparing homosexual marriage to bestiality?

But if you must insist that marrying fruit is a legitimate argument.

 

[Joey D]

When it comes to marriage, I still think it should be defined as a contract between two consenting adults and it should be left at that. If, for whatever reason, you want to marry your mother, sister, cousin, etc. you should be allowed too and if you wanted to marry more than one person you should be allowed to do that as well. When it comes to animals and inanimate objects, they can't legally enter a contract so therefore marrying them would be a moot point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

When it comes to animals and inanimate objects, they can't legally enter a contract so therefore marrying them would be a moot point.

So it should become illegal for people to marry trees?

Why is this so different to comparing homosexual marriage to bestiality?

I don't think I drew that line - the comment was made that the state should cease to define marraige. I was curious as to who should define marriage and wondered what other commentators thought of some of the possibilities.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think I drew that line - the comment was made that the state should cease to define marraige. I was curious as to who should define marriage and wondered what other commentators thought of some of the possibilities.

How can you marry something that can't give consent? You can define marriage however you please, you can even go around claiming you married a tree, but without informed consent from both parties you just have words.


And I am curious if Kim Davis saying something about bestiality as the result of homosexual marriage would make you just wonder if she is wondering what other commentators thought of some of the possibilities.

 

[LeMansAid]

So it should become illegal for people to marry trees?

Make sure that you haven't lost track of your original argument.

Anybody but government

..... is a pretty silly statement, in it's vagueness - but instead of arguing the who, you've wound up arguing the what.

On contracts for trees - it would be interesting to see what they could come up with, if a paperbark got together with a pencil pine.

 

[Joey D]

So it should become illegal for people to marry trees?

Yes, a contract requires consent between two parties. A tree can't give consent, nor does it have the ability to sign it's name on a contract to make it legal.

 

[Minty]

Yes, a contract requires consent between two parties. A tree can't give consent, nor does it have the ability to sign it's name on a contract to make it legal.

And even if it could give consent, it would probably feel a little uncomfortable signing a contract on what is basically the dried pulp made from its own family.

 

[Daniel]

Since we're in this thread, you could say "Faaaaaaaaaaaaaabulous!!!"

Consummate for sure.

That was one time, okay?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Make sure that you haven't lost track of your original argument.

Noted, but I'm still interested in the who is to define marriage, that inevitably leads to the what. @Joey D thinks it shouldn't be legal to marry a tree, for example, that means that no CEOs are going to marry one so it can have a vote on their board (the Caligula precedent I guess ). My point is that if people are each allowed to define marriage and we each have to expect that then pretty much anything will go.