equality blooms with spring, pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
you realize how insane this sounds, and how this is the most homophobic position you've yet
If there are no government incentives for marriage - why do I need the government to "sanction" my marriage?
 
Do lawyers handle prenuptials? Divorce? Wills? I imagine with a divorce rate above 50 percent, you haven't lacked clients.

Well if you think that domestic contracts are more common than not, then you imagine wrong.

Obviously it depends on your jurisdiction, but generally speaking, divorce and family law legislation currently dictates the means of calculating net family property and splitting it up on a separation event. The vast majority of people do not have domestic contracts because they a) can't afford them, b) aren't legally savvy, c) don't think they need them.

When you take away marriage-related legislation, then what law will govern when a couple splits?

I don't have time right now to get into the nitty gritty, but as I said earlier, your proposal is totally unworkable, and really to me sounds like little more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
 
if that's your position, fine. i find it surprising that same-sex marriage led you to this conclusion.

It falls in line with my preference for small government and the protection of the church from the state.

fortunately, most people don't agree with you.

That can be debated by the evidence of recent gay marriage defeats in very liberal states.

you seem to have been backed into a corner defending an indefensible position...
To a certain degree you are actually correct. The more I researched and posted - the more I realized I was actually advocating the state should define marriage when I actually desire that the state be as little involved in people's lives as possible.

i think you should start by refusing your tax breaks and getting separate medical insurance.
The tax breaks are minimal, at best. We already have separate medical insurance...
 
What law currently governs when any non-married couple living together splits?

Again, depends on the jurisdiction because it depends on whether they are seen as common-law partners or not (defined differently based on where you live). Usually there is a family law statute that addresses CL couples, of course this is not extended to same-sex couples unless you live in a place where the legislation has been amended.

So you'd have to address that point either way.
 
It falls in line with my preference for small government and the protection of the church from the state.


so now you've adopted the position that marriage is only for sexual satisfaction and society has no interest in helping people create families. as with most faux-libertarian positions, this will wind up hurting the poor who would benefit most from the advantages of marriage and often need to blend incomes in order to stay out of poverty.

but so long as the homos don't marry, then i guess this is worth it?




That can be debated by the evidence of recent gay marriage defeats in very liberal states.


you've really tripped yourself up here. none of these states have voted to eradicate any and all social recognition of marriage, the new position you're advocating today. all that's happened is that a vote was held on whether or not to allow gay people to marry (in states that already have strong anti-discrimination laws and civil union-type structures already i place.

i should point out that this is (at least) the second false dichotomy you've set up.

again, you're just adding fuel to the theory that you're ready to eradicate marriage just to keep the homos out.



The tax breaks are minimal, at best.



does $400k over the course of a lifetime sound minimal to you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/your-money/03money.html
 
so now you've adopted the position that marriage is only for sexual satisfaction
My opinion on marriage, and the beauty and importance of it, has not changed. The state should have no jurisdiction over it.

and society has no interest in helping people create families.
How has this been working out the last fifty-odd years? What the state helps is usually what it hurts.

you've really tripped yourself up here. none of these states have voted to eradicate any and all social recognition of marriage, the new position you're advocating today.
I thought you were referring to my personal opinion on marriage, and whether or not it was popular. My apologies. I agree, the voters would not have supported removing the incentives for marriage.

again, you're just adding fuel to the theory that you're ready to eradicate marriage just to keep the homos out.
Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.


does $400k over the course of a lifetime sound minimal to you?
Man, then I need a new accountant...well, I guess it is better for society to have that $400k back and fix the bridges.
 
Pretty simple, and pretty good case for what marriage is supposed to be about...



In their first interview as a married couple since they tied the knot in August of last year at their home in Los Angeles, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi talk about making their marriage official and the joy of wedded bliss on 'Oprah Winfrey.'

"The thing about being a gay couple is that in the past you referred to your wife and there were quotation marks around it, and there was always that chance that people would kind of snigger about it, but now it's fact. It's law," de Rossi said. "She's my wife. I get to say that she's my wife. That's just the way it is. It's fact."

Clearly, Ellen is enjoying married life and looks forward to a long union with de Rossi, who she dated from December 2004. "Anybody who's married knows that there is a difference. It feels like you're home. There's an anchor. There's a safety," she told Oprah. "I'm going to be with her until the day I die, and I know that."
 
My opinion on marriage, and the beauty and importance of it, has not changed. The state should have no jurisdiction over it.

How has this been working out the last fifty-odd years? What the state helps is usually what it hurts.

I thought you were referring to my personal opinion on marriage, and whether or not it was popular. My apologies. I agree, the voters would not have supported removing the incentives for marriage.

Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.


Man, then I need a new accountant...well, I guess it is better for society to have that $400k back and fix the bridges.




so i take it you've given up?

can you at least agree, that under the current law regarding civil marriage, there is no logical reason to bar gay couples from the institution.
 
the definition of the word "faggot" has changed enormously over time.

Great point, Irvine. And eventually, if a word changes enough, it loses its original meaning. And if the word eventually compiles too many definitions, it actually becomes "meaning"-less.
 
So, because I'm leaving the Catholic Church, I'm not allowed to get married anymore?

You're trying to make marriage into an exclusive, religion-only activity. I mean, this is stiflingly stupid. I actually can't believe it.
 
No, as long as you marry a vag... a woman it's okay. Even I can do that and even though I don't believe it, and wouldn't do it in such a setting, the spirit would be with me.
But the spirit stays out when it's to pen... men or two vag... women getting married. And that's why that cannot happen.
 
You're trying to make marriage into an exclusive, religion-only activity. I mean, this is stiflingly stupid. I actually can't believe it.

Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.

Perhaps you missed this part...
AEON said:
...or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so
 
Anything that challenges the hegemony of the ruling group is suspect.

Is this a univeral law? (something that always, or almost always, happens)

If it is, would the next "ruling group" be less defensive to the challenges of its hegemony? Or is it your hope the next "ruling group" would be so enlightened that it would freely surrender its hegemony once it achieves it?
 
i feel confident that we've successfully demonstrated that there's no logical reason to bar gay people from the institution of civil marriage. either we have to turn to universal laws given to us from a supernatural source thousands of years ago, or we have to abandon the thing altogether.
 
Where have I called for the eradication of marriage? Religious organizations or any secular group wishing to perform marriages are free to do so.

So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that? Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...
 
Which God?


this one?

god_hates_fags.jpg
 
So basically if your church decided it would marry two women you would be ok with that?
There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.

Since now there is no governing body deciding if a marriage is legal or not, then you've pretty much opened it up to anyone...
Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.
 
There are a great many "churches" one can belong to. Some would permit same sex marriages - others would not. I do not align myself with any church over any single issue, but a host of issues. I currently attend/belong to a "non-denominational" church that teaches an interpretation of the Bible that does not support homosexual marriages. Should they decide to teach a different interpretation of the Bible , I would be skeptical - but open. I would react the same way with any "change" in interpretation.

Sure. Why not? Have at it. I just advocate that the state has nothing to do with it.

So now all those reasons you had in the past about changing definitions, changing it's meaning, keeping the sanctity are all thrown out the window?

So none of that really mattered to you?

True colors...
 
Before you identify something as as "siflingly stupid" you might want to consider re-reading the post.

Perhaps you missed this part...

Are you just making these up? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
 
What about it?




Home / Globe / Opinion / Op-ed Jeff Jacoby

Wedded to vitriol, backers of gay marriage stumble
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / November 11, 2009
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address
Sending your articleYour article has been sent. E-mail| Print| Reprints| Yahoo! Buzz| ShareThisText size – + ON ELECTION DAY, voters in Maine repealed a six-month-old state law authorizing same-sex marriage. Maine was the 31st state in which the legal definition of marriage was put to a vote, and the 31st in which voters rejected gay marriage. And once again, the response from many on the losing side was bitter.

Discuss
COMMENTS (602)
“Bigotry trumps compassion,’’ wrote commentator Michael Stone, calling the vote “a shameful display of ignorance, bigotry, and hate.’’ In the Maine Campus, the newspaper of the University of Maine, columnist Samantha Hansen denounced the voters who “let hatred, confusion, misinformation, and ignorance emerge victorious over liberty.’’ When will it occur to supporters of same-sex marriage that they do their cause no good by characterizing those who disagree with them as haters, bigots, and ignorant homophobes? It may be emotionally satisfying to despise as moral cripples the majorities who oppose gay marriage. But after going 0 for 31 - after failing to make the case for same-sex marriage even in such liberal and largely gay-friendly states as California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and now Maine - isn’t it time to stop caricaturing their opponents as the equivalent of Jim Crow-era segregationists? Wouldn’t it make more sense to concede that thoughtful voters can have reasonable concerns about gay marriage, concerns that will not be allayed by describing those voters as contemptible troglodytes?

I oppose same-sex marriage for reasons previous columns have explored. I think it would be reckless to jettison the understanding, as old as civilization itself, that society has a deep interest in promoting families anchored by a married man and woman. It seems to me nonsensical to claim that men and women are utterly interchangeable, or to deny that children are likeliest to thrive when they are raised by both a mother and a father. I believe that timeless moral standards must not be casually overturned and that doing so is apt to have unintended and unfortunate consequences. And I am sure that legalizing same-sex wedlock would fuel demands for further radical change - legalizing plural marriage, for example.

But strongly opposing gay marriage doesn’t mean I don’t understand why many people just as strongly favor it. I can sympathize with committed gay and lesbian couples who feel demeaned by the law’s rejection of same-sex marriage or who crave the proof of societal acceptance, the cloak of normalcy, that a marriage license would provide. I don’t regard the redefinition of marriage as a civil rights issue; nor do I buy the argument that laws barring same-sex marriage are comparable to the laws that once barred interracial marriage. But I recognize that many people - sincere and decent people - do. By my lights they are mistaken, not evil.

Why do so many same-sex marriage advocates find it so hard to see marriage traditionalists in the same light?

In a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Messner surveys the “naked animus’’ that was directed against supporters of Proposition 8, the California marriage amendment that voters approved last year. His meticulously footnoted study makes chilling reading, with example after example of the blacklisting, vandalism, intimidation, loss of employment, anti-religious hostility, and even death threats to which backers of Prop. 8 were subjected.

Of course not all proponents of gay marriage display such vehement intolerance. But far too many do to shrug it off as insignificant. And voters don’t have to be paranoid to wonder: If this is the kind of abuse that opponents of gay marriage can be subjected to now, how much more intolerance will dissenters face if gay marriage becomes the law?

After 31 losses in 31 states, it’s time for same-sex marriage activists to seriously consider a piece of advice Barney Frank offered a few years ago. “There’s something to be said for cultural respect,’’ the nation’s most prominent gay political figure said in 2004.

barney-frank_grabbing_ass.jpg



“Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’

Go Barney.

<>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom