<!--quoteo(post=1747729:date=Jan 18 2010, 12:06 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 18 2010, 12:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747729"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Thaldarin thinks that being stoned has a more detrimental effect than being crushed by a large mass of rock.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's the difference between a drawn-out death and a quick one. Seems like an easy choice to me.
BadMouthIt ceases to be exclusive when you can have a custom member titlJoin Date: 2004-05-21Member: 28815Members
I think the newsweek article actually uses truths and logic to come about its decision. I just don't understand why some people can't look at those arguments and think "that's actually right".
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1747777:date=Jan 18 2010, 12:57 AM:name=BadMouth)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BadMouth @ Jan 18 2010, 12:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1747777"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the newsweek article actually uses truths and logic to come about its decision. I just don't understand why some people can't look at those arguments and think "that's actually right".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because some people don't actually believe in the foundations of the USA. They may pay lip service to it, and follow it when it helps them, but they don't actually believe the ideas of equality, tolerance, and freedom for all.
They believe that they know better, that they have inside information on life, that they ARE helping the less fortunate/ill informed by controlling what they can do.
These are, unsurprisingly, similar to the rationalization that has been used to control people not like "us" through out history.
The Spanish conquistadors brought 'civilization' and 'prosperity' to South America. The British did the same thing with North America. Almost all slave holders said the same lines. The Romans did it, the Jews did it, the Indians did it (fortunately the cast system has been almost completely abolished). If my history was better I am sure that I could point out examples in Asia and Africa.
It's human nature. I also like to think that it is human nature to rise up against these ideas and abolish them as we have done many times in the past.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748003:date=Jan 19 2010, 11:27 AM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 19 2010, 11:27 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748003"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Because some people don't actually believe in the foundations of the USA. They may pay lip service to it, and follow it when it helps them, but they don't actually believe the ideas of equality, tolerance, and freedom for all.
They believe that they know better, that they have inside information on life, that they ARE helping the less fortunate/ill informed by controlling what they can do.
These are, unsurprisingly, similar to the rationalization that has been used to control people not like "us" through out history.
The Spanish conquistadors brought 'civilization' and 'prosperity' to South America. The British did the same thing with North America. Almost all slave holders said the same lines. The Romans did it, the Jews did it, the Indians did it (fortunately the cast system has been almost completely abolished). If my history was better I am sure that I could point out examples in Asia and Africa.
It's human nature. I also like to think that it is human nature to rise up against these ideas and abolish them as we have done many times in the past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't give most people that credit. Sure, some people want homosexuals to be "saved", but I think for the majority who are against it that it just doesn't "feel right" to them because that's not how they grew up.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748087:date=Jan 19 2010, 08:16 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Jan 19 2010, 08:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748087"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I wouldn't give most people that credit. Sure, some people want homosexuals to be "saved", but I think for the majority who are against it that it just doesn't "feel right" to them because that's not how they grew up.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not saying they actually really think that, it is just a very popular explanation/rationalization for when "we" want to control "them".
It is sort of hard to loudly proclaim "these people are inferior, thus we shall dominate them" or "I don't like this, stop it!". It is easier to say "You are uninformed, we will protect you from your self" or "they are savages, we are bringing them civilization".
I consider myself pretty conservative, I think the government should intervene in people's lives only when necessary for the good of the public, the rest of the time they can go screw off. So I do not think they should have any say in who can or who can not get married.
What a load of bull######. I can't believe this is even an issue, whether or not society can dictate to the individual what to do with their private lives. Is it 1984 already?..
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748534:date=Jan 22 2010, 06:59 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 22 2010, 06:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748534"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What a load of bull######. I can't believe this is even an issue, whether or not society can dictate to the individual what to do with their private lives. Is it 1984 already?..<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Kinda missed the point completely.
We have no laws saying homosexuality is illegal. Marriage, however, is a government created institution (in the way that we are talking about it), thus the government HAS to have a say in it.
<!--quoteo(post=1748543:date=Jan 22 2010, 02:38 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 02:38 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748543"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We have no laws saying homosexuality is illegal. Marriage, however, is a government created institution (in the way that we are talking about it), thus the government HAS to have a say in it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? I really fail to see the difference. Does it really matter if it's government or anything else poking it's nose where it don't belong?
<!--quoteo(post=1748546:date=Jan 22 2010, 02:52 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 22 2010, 02:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748546"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's the same draco from IRC, are you particularly surprised? He's deliberately using bad points and buzz phrases to annoy people.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've never been on the IRC and I really fail to see how being amused at people not being able to mind their own damn business is trolling.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1748544:date=Jan 22 2010, 07:45 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Jan 22 2010, 07:45 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748544"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What? I really fail to see the difference. Does it really matter if it's government or anything else poking it's nose where it don't belong?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't draco, especially as you state that you aren't from the US.
The difference is that one thing (people being homosexual) has nothing to do with the government. The other thing (marriage) is 100% having to do with the government.
There is nothing stopping people from being homosexual, there is nothing stopping any one from stating "I am married to X, Y, and/or Z". As a duly anointed high poomba of Pastafarianism I can declare that Draco and Thaldy and Draco are married, and no one can gainsay that.
HOWEVER. The government has also created an institution called marriage. It is a legally binding contract (well, I dont' know if it's actually a contract or not) between two individuals with with set laws protecting it, and giving those people special privileges BY THE GOVERNMENT. The government does this because we (society) view marriage to be a good thing that we wish to encourage (much like we encourage farmers to not raise X crop by giving them subsidies).
The argument is that there is no significant difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual one, and thus we must not discriminate against them.
The common arguments against this are (and their counter arguments): 1) Heterosexual couples have kids. This is good, we wish to promote it. 1a) Many heterosexual couples will not/do not want/can not have kids. Yet we do no discriminate against them. 2) SSM will dilute HSM. 2a) The same number of HSMs will happen. legalizing SSM will not magically turn everyone ######. Just as declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional didn't. 3) SSM harms HSM. 3a) How? They don't have an answer.
<!--quoteo(post=1748555:date=Jan 22 2010, 04:21 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 04:21 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The difference is that one thing (people being homosexual) has nothing to do with the government. The other thing (marriage) is 100% having to do with the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I still have no idea what you're trying to say with this. Just because marriage is a legal act doesn't mean government can impose arbitrary distinctions based on private affairs when it comes to it? What does it matter if it's the government or the people that concern themselves with private lives of others?
I'm just amazed this is even an issue, as if invading someone's private life can be somehow justified. To me it sounds as ridiculous as discussing whether or not the amount of melanin in one's skin affects their worth as a human being, it's just not the kind of thing you expect from a civilised nation.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
/facepalm
Did you read any of what I wrote?
I'm going to give this one more try.
Marriage IS NOT PRIVATE LIFE. Marriage (as we are discussing it) is a government sponsored event, it isn't a private action. It is something that you go to the government for and ask them to give it (a marriage license) to you.
If it was a private event that the government had no say in then it WOULDN'T be an issue. But as it stands government gives rewards and benefits to married couples, thus giving it every right to have a say in who gets it.
By your logic I should be able to say "I love my pet rock, I wish to marry it, give me tax breaks and stuff". It is my private life, I should be able to do as I see fit, right? Unfortunately, society doesn't see things the way I do (and they are ######s for not acknowledging the special bond between me and Malachitey!), and thus do not wish to give me incentives for forming a life long bond with a rock.
Obviously, this isn't actually an aspect of private life (my desire to get tax breaks for marrying a rock). What IS private life is my buddy Jim-Bob-Marry-Joe-Sue performing the ceremony and declaring Malechitey and me bound in satanic marriage (Malechitey is a satanist, I'm just along for the ride). There you are correct. No one has the right to stop me from doing this, as it is my private life.
Get it?
Also, if your argument is that Marriage as a governmental institution should be abolished, and that no one should receive the blessing of the Government (and thus tax breaks and all that jazz) when they wed another, that is a different story, and one that I can't really argue against, as I am honestly not as familiar with it. However I know it would cause complications with 'simple' things like right of attorney for an invalid, etc etc.
I would seriously get behind the abolishing of marriage as it currently is. And a 40% flat tax rate on income with no other taxes anywhere for the individuals. Corporate taxes can stay the way they are.
So you have <i>EASY</i> tax returns every year, no sales taxes or dog taxes or property taxes, none of this ###### marriage debate crap, and you just do whatever religious hocus pocus that suits your fancy, change one of the partner's names (if you want to) and there you have it.
<!--quoteo(post=1748562:date=Jan 22 2010, 05:29 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 05:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748562"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Marriage IS NOT PRIVATE LIFE. Marriage (as we are discussing it) is a government sponsored event, it isn't a private action. It is something that you go to the government for and ask them to give it (a marriage license) to you.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know it's a legal contract, I just fail to see how being subject to law makes it any less citizen's private affair, or why this means it can even be an issue.
I think we're on different wavelengths here or something...
<!--quoteo(post=1748568:date=Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would seriously get behind the abolishing of marriage as it currently is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In a magical world where all other laws make sense, totally.
<!--quoteo(post=1748568:date=Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>And a 40% flat tax rate on income</b> with no other taxes anywhere for the individuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a bit much, don't you think?..
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited January 2010
40% really isn't that much. I have almost 30% of my pay withheld for taxes. And then pay another good chunk of my earnings on sales taxes. Meaning nearly 40% of my income does go to taxes. Of course, I get at least some of this back, though not that much, at the end of the year as I am relatively low income. The problem with a flat tax is that it seems like a great idea until you realize that 40% of the income of some one at or near the poverty line hurts a lot more than some one safely above it. This is why we don't tax amenities like food. I can't make a good and rational argument for any of these though, as I really do not understand economics that well.
The problem with completely abolishing marriage, as I see it, is the problem of having a legal relation to your partner. How do we distinguish between a spouse and a house mate? Who has the right to make legal decisions for the other? This is a large part of why SSM is important. If we don't give them those abilities we deny that their partnerships are as valid as heterosexual ones.
I will also no longer try to explain to you why it is something that the government has to be involved in, if you read my posts instead of just the first lines you might get it.
I think you can sign over most of your legal decision making powers to anyone you'd like. Say your medical proxy for when you're incapacitated. This'll default to a spouse, and if not, the next closest relative. There's no good reason this person couldn't just be an "attribute" we set for ourselves. Same thing for all other stuff. Like when you add a contact person on a form for work or something.
I said earlier in this thread that all this dogma about marriage goes back to the physical act of joining two blood lines for political reasons. It can still serve this purpose for those who want it to without being so intertwined with federal law. A marriage between to of our political "houses" (I dunno, for fun let's say the Clintons and the Bushes) can still be announced as such and the full weight of what it implies is still applied regardless of legal contract from the government. In this case, marriage <i>has</i> to be between a man and a woman, because it's about genes, not love.
Any legal benefits marriage gives could easily, and probably more efficiently, be given through more loosely coupled means. Apply to change your legal proxy, apply to change your last name, apply for specific tax benefits based on grounds of combined incomes vs living in the same house, or whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=1748575:date=Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->40% really isn't that much. I have almost 30% of my pay withheld for taxes. And then pay another good chunk of my earnings on sales taxes. Meaning nearly 40% of my income does go to taxes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh yeah, almost forgot... Well, yes, the taxation is already pretty bad as it is. Especially keeping in mind that something like 5% of it goes to the government, and once it goes through there, who knows how much of it actually works towards public benefit..
<!--quoteo(post=1748575:date=Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with completely abolishing marriage, as I see it, is the problem of having a legal relation to your partner. How do we distinguish between a spouse and a house mate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hypothetically this could be solved by instancing the benefits that come with the marriage itself: want your spouse, housemate, friend or pet to visit you in hospital because you're close? Sign a paper that lets them do that.
But of course, this belong in the fairytale land where laws make sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1748575:date=Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will also no longer try to explain to you why it is something that the government has to be involved in, if you read my posts instead of just the first lines you might get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I've read your posts. Sorry, I just have no idea.
I just want to point out that currently, under the homosexual marriage bans that are applied in states including my own, transgendered homosexual s (yes, they are still homosexuals to me) can still get married:
Man 1 goes through transgendered surgery and is legally reclassified as a female. He can now marry a man who is still a legal man.
When talking about the whole homosexual vs straight, this is why it doesn't matter. The ban is a ban on legally defined men and women. If they get a legal change to the other gender they can marry legally. In all of the states that ban homosexual marriage it only punishes homosexual couples where one doesn't go through the process of changing their gender.
And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude. The argument that 'well he got a legal status change' doesn't matter because that means that all that needs to happen is a judge makes that happen. While most require effort, it doesn't have to be that way. And what about people born with both genders? Are they not able to marry anyone or do they get to pick and choose based on how they were reported as a gender at birth?
Marriage needs to be reclassified as two people and the religious need to stop getting into other people's business when it doesn't affect them at all. There are so many things that a marriage certificate gives that you can't even get through the courts (federal tax brakes, health care access, emergency room access) that restricting it to a pair that simply has a XX and an XY match is just ridiculous.
<!--quoteo(post=1749086:date=Jan 25 2010, 03:14 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 25 2010, 03:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749086"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So which toilet does she go to?
<!--quoteo(post=1749136:date=Jan 25 2010, 01:15 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 25 2010, 01:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749136"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So which toilet does she go to?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The second stall on the left :)
If I ruled the world there would not be separate men and women's restrooms, instead there would be one large room with stalls for everyone for individual privacy. In the current world he would use the women's restroom due to his female legal status due to appearance.
By what standard do you call her a man then? If it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck and it has a neat sign taped to it that says "duck," in what way isn't it a duck?
Kind of a shady area, isn't it? The exterior says it's one sex, genes say it's another - both the effect and the reason people do the operation. We're actually at a point we can dabble with such fundamental aspects of nature, hah.
I guess you can also approach this "morally", but good luck getting anywhere with that.
It's even shady from a genetic perspective. Try reading about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome" target="_blank">Y chromosome,</a> particularly the sections "Defective Y-chromosome" and "XX male syndrome."
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1749086:date=Jan 25 2010, 02:14 PM:name=snooggums)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snooggums @ Jan 25 2010, 02:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749086"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you should probably make an effort to understand transgenderism and gender dysphoria, rather than making pronouncements after thinking about it for the briefest of interludes.
<!--quoteo(post=1749181:date=Jan 25 2010, 09:40 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 25 2010, 09:40 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749181"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's even shady from a genetic perspective. Try reading about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome" target="_blank">Y chromosome,</a> particularly the sections "Defective Y-chromosome" and "XX male syndrome."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The logic here applies to all aspects of life. We're not perfect machines. Irregularities in operation are why each of us is unique and why arguments about how "you're not born ######" are silly. I suppose you could make the case that having male genes and features but female sex drive makes you abnormal, but you'd better be damn careful about waving that term in people's faces. Most likely you've got some flaws of your own. We is all human!
<!--quoteo(post=1749181:date=Jan 26 2010, 04:40 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 26 2010, 04:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749181"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's even shady from a genetic perspective. Try reading about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome" target="_blank">Y chromosome,</a> particularly the sections "Defective Y-chromosome" and "XX male syndrome."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, which is why I said it can be both effect of and reason for the operation. Gender dysphoria and whatever.
Would be less of a problem if we didn't judge people by the contents of their crotch.
<!--quoteo(post=1749211:date=Jan 26 2010, 11:35 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 26 2010, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749211"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We is all human!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I didn't like snooggums' denial of transgender status, specifically "he's still a dude," so I tried to pin him down on what I perceive to be a faulty or incomplete understanding of the transgender issue on his part, but I guess I am just pulling the thread off topic. Back to ###### marriage.
Comments
It's the difference between a drawn-out death and a quick one. Seems like an easy choice to me.
that being said, re reading this thread makes me think of this image
<img src="http://blackmage.org/bbs/src/1263784714719.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
and <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957</a> was a good read, I wonder what others thought
Because some people don't actually believe in the foundations of the USA. They may pay lip service to it, and follow it when it helps them, but they don't actually believe the ideas of equality, tolerance, and freedom for all.
They believe that they know better, that they have inside information on life, that they ARE helping the less fortunate/ill informed by controlling what they can do.
These are, unsurprisingly, similar to the rationalization that has been used to control people not like "us" through out history.
The Spanish conquistadors brought 'civilization' and 'prosperity' to South America.
The British did the same thing with North America.
Almost all slave holders said the same lines.
The Romans did it, the Jews did it, the Indians did it (fortunately the cast system has been almost completely abolished).
If my history was better I am sure that I could point out examples in Asia and Africa.
It's human nature.
I also like to think that it is human nature to rise up against these ideas and abolish them as we have done many times in the past.
They believe that they know better, that they have inside information on life, that they ARE helping the less fortunate/ill informed by controlling what they can do.
These are, unsurprisingly, similar to the rationalization that has been used to control people not like "us" through out history.
The Spanish conquistadors brought 'civilization' and 'prosperity' to South America.
The British did the same thing with North America.
Almost all slave holders said the same lines.
The Romans did it, the Jews did it, the Indians did it (fortunately the cast system has been almost completely abolished).
If my history was better I am sure that I could point out examples in Asia and Africa.
It's human nature.
I also like to think that it is human nature to rise up against these ideas and abolish them as we have done many times in the past.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't give most people that credit. Sure, some people want homosexuals to be "saved", but I think for the majority who are against it that it just doesn't "feel right" to them because that's not how they grew up.
I'm not saying they actually really think that, it is just a very popular explanation/rationalization for when "we" want to control "them".
It is sort of hard to loudly proclaim "these people are inferior, thus we shall dominate them" or "I don't like this, stop it!". It is easier to say "You are uninformed, we will protect you from your self" or "they are savages, we are bringing them civilization".
Kinda missed the point completely.
We have no laws saying homosexuality is illegal. Marriage, however, is a government created institution (in the way that we are talking about it), thus the government HAS to have a say in it.
What? I really fail to see the difference. Does it really matter if it's government or anything else poking it's nose where it don't belong?
It's the same draco from IRC, are you particularly surprised? He's deliberately using bad points and buzz phrases to annoy people.
I've never been on the IRC and I really fail to see how being amused at people not being able to mind their own damn business is trolling.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't draco, especially as you state that you aren't from the US.
The difference is that one thing (people being homosexual) has nothing to do with the government. The other thing (marriage) is 100% having to do with the government.
There is nothing stopping people from being homosexual, there is nothing stopping any one from stating "I am married to X, Y, and/or Z". As a duly anointed high poomba of Pastafarianism I can declare that Draco and Thaldy and Draco are married, and no one can gainsay that.
HOWEVER.
The government has also created an institution called marriage. It is a legally binding contract (well, I dont' know if it's actually a contract or not) between two individuals with with set laws protecting it, and giving those people special privileges BY THE GOVERNMENT. The government does this because we (society) view marriage to be a good thing that we wish to encourage (much like we encourage farmers to not raise X crop by giving them subsidies).
The argument is that there is no significant difference between a homosexual marriage and a heterosexual one, and thus we must not discriminate against them.
The common arguments against this are (and their counter arguments):
1) Heterosexual couples have kids. This is good, we wish to promote it.
1a) Many heterosexual couples will not/do not want/can not have kids. Yet we do no discriminate against them.
2) SSM will dilute HSM.
2a) The same number of HSMs will happen. legalizing SSM will not magically turn everyone ######. Just as declaring sodomy laws unconstitutional didn't.
3) SSM harms HSM.
3a) How? They don't have an answer.
I still have no idea what you're trying to say with this. Just because marriage is a legal act doesn't mean government can impose arbitrary distinctions based on private affairs when it comes to it? What does it matter if it's the government or the people that concern themselves with private lives of others?
I'm just amazed this is even an issue, as if invading someone's private life can be somehow justified. To me it sounds as ridiculous as discussing whether or not the amount of melanin in one's skin affects their worth as a human being, it's just not the kind of thing you expect from a civilised nation.
Did you read any of what I wrote?
I'm going to give this one more try.
Marriage IS NOT PRIVATE LIFE. Marriage (as we are discussing it) is a government sponsored event, it isn't a private action. It is something that you go to the government for and ask them to give it (a marriage license) to you.
If it was a private event that the government had no say in then it WOULDN'T be an issue. But as it stands government gives rewards and benefits to married couples, thus giving it every right to have a say in who gets it.
By your logic I should be able to say "I love my pet rock, I wish to marry it, give me tax breaks and stuff". It is my private life, I should be able to do as I see fit, right? Unfortunately, society doesn't see things the way I do (and they are ######s for not acknowledging the special bond between me and Malachitey!), and thus do not wish to give me incentives for forming a life long bond with a rock.
Obviously, this isn't actually an aspect of private life (my desire to get tax breaks for marrying a rock). What IS private life is my buddy Jim-Bob-Marry-Joe-Sue performing the ceremony and declaring Malechitey and me bound in satanic marriage (Malechitey is a satanist, I'm just along for the ride). There you are correct. No one has the right to stop me from doing this, as it is my private life.
Get it?
Also, if your argument is that Marriage as a governmental institution should be abolished, and that no one should receive the blessing of the Government (and thus tax breaks and all that jazz) when they wed another, that is a different story, and one that I can't really argue against, as I am honestly not as familiar with it. However I know it would cause complications with 'simple' things like right of attorney for an invalid, etc etc.
So you have <i>EASY</i> tax returns every year, no sales taxes or dog taxes or property taxes, none of this ###### marriage debate crap, and you just do whatever religious hocus pocus that suits your fancy, change one of the partner's names (if you want to) and there you have it.
Course, that's never going to happen.
I know it's a legal contract, I just fail to see how being subject to law makes it any less citizen's private affair, or why this means it can even be an issue.
I think we're on different wavelengths here or something...
<!--quoteo(post=1748568:date=Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I would seriously get behind the abolishing of marriage as it currently is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In a magical world where all other laws make sense, totally.
<!--quoteo(post=1748568:date=Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 22 2010, 05:56 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748568"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>And a 40% flat tax rate on income</b> with no other taxes anywhere for the individuals.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a bit much, don't you think?..
The problem with completely abolishing marriage, as I see it, is the problem of having a legal relation to your partner. How do we distinguish between a spouse and a house mate? Who has the right to make legal decisions for the other? This is a large part of why SSM is important. If we don't give them those abilities we deny that their partnerships are as valid as heterosexual ones.
I will also no longer try to explain to you why it is something that the government has to be involved in, if you read my posts instead of just the first lines you might get it.
I said earlier in this thread that all this dogma about marriage goes back to the physical act of joining two blood lines for political reasons. It can still serve this purpose for those who want it to without being so intertwined with federal law. A marriage between to of our political "houses" (I dunno, for fun let's say the Clintons and the Bushes) can still be announced as such and the full weight of what it implies is still applied regardless of legal contract from the government. In this case, marriage <i>has</i> to be between a man and a woman, because it's about genes, not love.
Any legal benefits marriage gives could easily, and probably more efficiently, be given through more loosely coupled means. Apply to change your legal proxy, apply to change your last name, apply for specific tax benefits based on grounds of combined incomes vs living in the same house, or whatever.
Oh yeah, almost forgot... Well, yes, the taxation is already pretty bad as it is. Especially keeping in mind that something like 5% of it goes to the government, and once it goes through there, who knows how much of it actually works towards public benefit..
<!--quoteo(post=1748575:date=Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with completely abolishing marriage, as I see it, is the problem of having a legal relation to your partner. How do we distinguish between a spouse and a house mate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypothetically this could be solved by instancing the benefits that come with the marriage itself: want your spouse, housemate, friend or pet to visit you in hospital because you're close? Sign a paper that lets them do that.
But of course, this belong in the fairytale land where laws make sense.
<!--quoteo(post=1748575:date=Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thansal @ Jan 22 2010, 06:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1748575"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I will also no longer try to explain to you why it is something that the government has to be involved in, if you read my posts instead of just the first lines you might get it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've read your posts. Sorry, I just have no idea.
Man 1 goes through transgendered surgery and is legally reclassified as a female.
He can now marry a man who is still a legal man.
When talking about the whole homosexual vs straight, this is why it doesn't matter. The ban is a ban on legally defined men and women. If they get a legal change to the other gender they can marry legally. In all of the states that ban homosexual marriage it only punishes homosexual couples where one doesn't go through the process of changing their gender.
And no, a man who goes through all of that is not a female. He's still a dude. The argument that 'well he got a legal status change' doesn't matter because that means that all that needs to happen is a judge makes that happen. While most require effort, it doesn't have to be that way. And what about people born with both genders? Are they not able to marry anyone or do they get to pick and choose based on how they were reported as a gender at birth?
Marriage needs to be reclassified as two people and the religious need to stop getting into other people's business when it doesn't affect them at all. There are so many things that a marriage certificate gives that you can't even get through the courts (federal tax brakes, health care access, emergency room access) that restricting it to a pair that simply has a XX and an XY match is just ridiculous.
So which toilet does she go to?
The second stall on the left :)
If I ruled the world there would not be separate men and women's restrooms, instead there would be one large room with stalls for everyone for individual privacy. In the current world he would use the women's restroom due to his female legal status due to appearance.
I guess you can also approach this "morally", but good luck getting anywhere with that.
I think you should probably make an effort to understand transgenderism and gender dysphoria, rather than making pronouncements after thinking about it for the briefest of interludes.
The logic here applies to all aspects of life. We're not perfect machines. Irregularities in operation are why each of us is unique and why arguments about how "you're not born ######" are silly. I suppose you could make the case that having male genes and features but female sex drive makes you abnormal, but you'd better be damn careful about waving that term in people's faces. Most likely you've got some flaws of your own. We is all human!
Yeah, which is why I said it can be both effect of and reason for the operation. Gender dysphoria and whatever.
Would be less of a problem if we didn't judge people by the contents of their crotch.
<!--quoteo(post=1749211:date=Jan 26 2010, 11:35 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Jan 26 2010, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749211"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We is all human!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->