The Glade 4.0

Why is this still an issue. What part of equality are people missing?

We don't allow (theoretically) religion to interfere with or establish itself in our government. Let the gays marry, many effectively are married already, many would if they could, and they aren't going to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

All we are doing is denying customers to the wedding business stores.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Because marriage is percieved as both a spiritual and a legal issue an we (theoretically) don't allow the government to impose on the peaceful religious excerise of believers.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The part where equality has anything to do with it.

Same sex marriage is not an issue of equality. It's an issue of liberty. We either allow same-sex marriage to everyone, or we allow it to no one.

This is the same thing as allowing gays in the military. Equality had nothing to do with that either. The issue was:

Does allowing gays to serve openly create issues of good order and discipline that outweigh the military benefits of allowing them to serve?

Until fairly recently, the answer was "no". The bulk of the U.S. population was simply not prepared for that, and the bulk of the U.S. population is what makes up the bulk of the military. The same applied to integration of blacks; that made perfect sense at the time it happened; it would not have made sense if it had happened prior to say, WWI and would most likely have been a disaster.

This was the problem with a lot of the lobbying regarding the issue; the lobby for open service by gays insisted on portraying it as an issue of "rights" and "freedom to serve" and "equality" when it was none of those things. It was simply a matter of "does allowing gays to serve openly provide military advantage?" The answer (which really should have been obvious by about 2004, but the other side had it's anti-gay idealouges too that had to be dealt with) was "no". It makes no sense, with the attitudes towards homosexuality these days leaning more and more towards tolerance, to be booting out Arab linguists or medics for being gay.

By focusing on "equality", the homosexual lobby actually probably slowed down the repeal of DADT. The other side could just keep hammering the concern over what gays in the ranks would do to unit cohesion. If you'll recall, the Pentagon, SecDef, and President were asked for a "certification" that repeal would not harm military readiness. The gay lobby howled against this, imagining that a bunch of generals and admirals were somehow more interested in maintaining a ban at all costs rather than what would be best for the military, but in reality it was a brillient move because once the generals, admirals, and secretary of defense had all lined up on the idea that military readiness wouldn't be hurt, the reason to keep gays out simply evaporated. The only argument left would have been "but they're wrong!"

The same thing applies to gay marriage. Hammering on "equality" doesn't work because it has nothing to do with equality; the law is already equal. You can't marry a person of the same sex whether you're gay, bisexual, or straight and just want one to get health benefits for your friend or something, except in those states that allow it. It's a matter of liberty. Allowing it allows more freedom to everyone.

The reason people keep harping on "equality" is because people keep trying to equate it to prior civil-rights struggles such as those undergone by blacks and women where inequality really was the problem; unequal pay for the same work, you can't sit at this lunch counter, etc. etc. This is counterproductive; it plays directly into the hands of those that oppose gay marriage. Arguing based on simple individual liberty (and calling it "same-sex marriage" rather than "gay marriage" because that's what it is; if for no other reason than that a same-sex couple which includes one or two bisexuals don't suddenly become gay because they got married) would work better because it would draw off the support of those people who are more concerned with greater liberty than they are with opposing gay marriage; divide and conquer so to speak.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The military has already solved this; it allows same sex marriages in chapels, and by chaplains, when it conforms to local law (which it has to, since marriages are a state-level function) and when the chaplain in question is not prohibited from it by his own faith; specifically the organization endorsing him as a chaplain.

It would be even easier in civil life because there is no risk of a higher chain of command ordering a civilian clergyman to conduct a marriage in conflict with their faith as a PR move or something unless it was the chain of command of that clergy's own denomination and that's their problem.

The only serious problem is requiring religious employers to recognize a same-sex marriage for various benefits. However, I think the adequate solution to this would be to simply allow any nonprofit employer to include as a condition of employment that the person will not marry a person of the same sex. In the interest of equality, they could even be allowed to specify "no opposite sex marriages" as well, or instead, but I doubt any sane organization would do that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

OK here's a solution let's get the government out of the marriage business all together.
Let them offer a domestic partnership license.
with all the same basic rules, in place you can only have one in place until dissolved by legal means just like divorce, conflicts in relationship status can be resolved in the courts as needed.
And then let churches or religious organizations issue Marriage certificates.
Though the marriage certificate is meaning less as far as the Government is concerned.
Hell you can get married all you want for all practical purposes. 6 wives and a dog if you choose, if you can find a church to issue the certificate. The Government and all related benefits are based on the domestic partnership license. Don't have that it doesn't matter what your church says.
I see this as a win win The government doesn't get define what has been widely recognized as a religious institution (falsely).
And churches are free to practice their beliefs as they see fit with out the government telling them who or what they can marry.
there you go separation of church and state.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

Leshani, sounds good.

DE, Any Employers shouldn't be being forced to provide any kinds of Health insurance.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

That's a separate issue.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That really doesn't do anything except rename "marriage" as a "domestic partnership" (or whatever) and then pretend we've somehow "gotten government out of marriage", which is amusing because all you're doing is using a legislative fiction to "fix" the "problem". As it stands right now, people can consider themselves religiously married to anyone they want or as many people as they want. Churches can perform as many ceremonies as they want. The only thing they can't add at the end is "By the power invested in by the state of X ..." or issue an official marriage certificate, and you'll still only have one legally recognized marriage.

The only way to "get the government out of marriage" is to obliterate any concept of legal marriage entirely. In other words, your wife is now your live-in girlfriend that you may owe child support to if she moves out and takes the kids. She is not your next-of-kin. She is not anyone the government or anyone else has to recognize as having any legally special relationship to you. If you die without a will, she has no standing. Et cetera, et cetera, and vice versa for her as well.

Even then, you're not getting government out of marriage at all; you're trying to get society out of marriage. "Government" has not been doing any significant meddling with marriage of its own accord; up till now they've simply passed laws that reflected what marriage traditionally was and paid no further attention to the matter. Part of society is demanding change, and another part is demanding that things not change and the legislature is debating it in accordance with the wishes of their constituents; hence why it's succeeding in some places and failing in others. The extent of government involvement in marriage has been record-keeping and resolution of dispute.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Bingo
just what is needed if Marriage is (falsely) viewed as a religious sacrament, then the government as no business regulating it or defining it. Let the churches and priests marry who ever they want, they shouldn't have any power or authority of any kind vested into them by the state.
The State on the other hand only will recognize domestic partnership licenses. real simple you can only be enter into 1 domestic partnership at a given time, it is a legal contract, you must be of legal age to enter into the contract. to dissolve the contract requires court approval of the terms of dissolution.

Of course the Gay community will never accept it, they want to be able to force churches to marry them.

_________________
History of the Condom
In 1272, the Muslim Arabs invented the condom, using a goat's lower intestine.
In 1873, the British somewhat refined the idea, by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

That's the thing. Marriage is not exclusively a religious sacrament. It's also a way to get the rest of society to recognize that you and <insert SO here> are creating a new family. It grants you certain legal rights that allow you to run a family more easily. I notice you seized on that one line and didn't mention all the things that would follow. That's because no one wants those things. No one wants the person they regard as their spouse treated for all legal purposes as some interloper you happen to sleep, live, and likely have children with.

Changing the name of it to "domestic partnership" isn't going to solve anything; the people that don't want gays to marry still aren't going to want to see society sanctioning their partnership legally, and gays are still going to go out and call themselves "married" when they don't have a religious marriage at all. Seriously, do you think people who are predjudiced against homosexuals are going to say "Oh, well since they're calling it domestic partnership instead of marriage, now I'm ok with it?" It isn't like this is going to keep their churches from marrying gays; no one seriously fears the government will force churches to marry gays as it is.

On the other side of the coin, gay couples and practically anyone else that gets a "domestic partnership" aren't going to be like "We're domestic partners, not married." They're still going to call themselves married, and some of them are going to do it simply because they think "domestic partner" sounds a lot like "second class citizen" (and they won't be entirely wrong) and others just to piss off religious people and a great many because they, like everyone else, is going to see that "domestic partnership" is "marriage" dressed up in bright, shiny new government packaging.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As I've stated before, I couldn't care less about convincing you. Equality should be the default. Your reasons against it are weak and haven't swayed me.



What do you mean so what? I've explained so what. And yes, rights are for individuals, and should be provided for all individuals. That is exactly right. Thus, any two individuals should be able to exercise the same rights.



I disagree. I see no problem at all. Any paperwork issue could be resolved.



Except that's not what they want to do. I fail to see why you or anyone else should dictate what they do.



No, it shouldn't matter. We're talking about a contract between consenting adults. Sex has nothing to do with it. It's not a contract to have sex, it's a contract that ties two individuals together in terms of property, next of kin, decision making, etc. Why are you talking about rape? Slippery slope fallacy.



Sure there is. Until the situation is worked out.



/facepalm /facepalm /facepalm.

Relax, man.



It absolutely is a reason. Because I want the same contract as everyone else. Why should people be limited as to whom they can contract with? Makes no sense.



No, you did not. And that's not my argument. Allowing EVERYONE access to contract with whomever they want is my argument.



Status quo is not a legitimate motivation for denying access to benefits.



You're acting like a child. Does this mean you agree that they are insignificant? Why should I balance my position around something that is insignificant?



That is silly. So silly, in fact, that it doesn't even relate to this discussion. For starters, the military is one partner in the contract. Nobody should be required to contract with someone. The military should not be required to contract with disabled persons, and a person should not be required to marry someone. If a private employer want to hire someone in a wheelchair, and the person in a wheelchair wants to work there, should the government be able to tell them they can't contract together?



I couldn't care less if you agree, as I've said. Your argument is weak, but if you want to hold to your opinion you are welcome.



That's retarded. If everyone had 2 social security numbers BUT you, you'd have a valid comparison.



I have. And while I see your point about having the same rules for everyone, the rules, if changed to allow gay marriage, no longer make any sense.



So you don't want to change things because you're scared? Sorry, man, I'm not.



They are minor, and no cause for limiting access to benefits.



Ok, believe what you want.



Who's panties are in a bunch? Are you kidding? Dude, I don't care. Sorry. I'm more than happy to discuss this, but I'm not even remotely concerned about swaying anyone.



Good God, man. What do you consider a major social issue? Gay marriage is a big deal right now.

THIS THIS THIS. But, I'll never get this. So... vote for gay marriage or push for what I'll never get?

/sigh

*And let's be honest. I'm married. How much time am I ever going to devote to pushing for this? (this thread's likely the extent of it).

Yup. I'm here too.

The lengthy post below indicates otherwise.



I've pointed out that equality exists. The same rules apply to everyone. If gay marriage is legalized, it will still apply; the only thing that will have changed will be the available actions to everyone.

My arguments against equality are weak mainly because they're nonexistent. I'm not arguing against equality at all. You keep insisting on equality when that's not the issue.



Any two individuals CAN exercise the same rights. They can marry exactly one other consenting, competent adult of the opposite sex who is not already a close relative. If we legalize gay marriage, that will just remove "of the opposite sex" from those qualifiers.

You're trying to pretend that because Jim and Sally who are not related can get married and Joe and Suzy who are siblings can't, that this is unequal somehow. It's not. Rights do not pertain to them as a pair, any more than rights pertain to "black people" as a group. They still all have equal rights; the fact that those rights don't include marrying your sibling isn't somehow unequal. The only available argument is that we should just add the freedom to marry close relatives, but this A) does not follow from allowing same-sex marriage, and B) comes up against the problems of both abuse and inbreeding inherent to incestuous relationships.



In other words, through the magic of handwavium.



So what? What they want to do is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of things, just because we don't give it to them doesn't mean its unfair.

They can still "marry" religiously and act like husband and wife. What they can't do is extend the legal benefits of marriage to more than one pairing - like everyone else. Why should they be allowed to? Accommodating married couples costs money to all kinds of people, especially employers and taxpayers.



No, you're just assuming consenting adults. Given the history of polygamy, that is not a safe assumption. Moreover, you are mistaken, it IS a contract to have sex. Infidelity is grounds for divorce, which means "regular" sexual interaction between partners is an obligation of marriage.



There's no situation to work out. We don't need to create it in the first place.



I'm perfectly relaxed. You're the one freaking out that you might have to vote for a bill that permits gay marriage but doesn't permit polygamy. Oh no! Whatever shall we do?! I mean really, if this biull gets voted down will you ever see one permitting polygamy in Maryland? I suspect not.



You've already got the same opportunity for the contract as everyone else. There's no reason a contractual opportunity has to be available in whatever form is convenient to anyone. I'd like a contract to provide chow to everyone in Afghanistan. Strangely, they won't offer me one, they only offer it to big companies like KBR that can, you know, provide chow to everyone in Afghanistan. Clearly, this is unequal! They need to have a chow-serving contract that allows individual people to participate!



That's your problem. You think that "whomever they want" has something to do with equality. It doesn't. That's a silly argument. Society has legal marriage in the first place to allow two people to more easily form and maintain a family. That's why it's open to a male and a female; they can form one. Close relatives don't need one; they already ARE a family and allowing them to do so has a greatly increased chance of birth defects, and of course the issues of abuse involved with incest. You certainly don't need more than one wife or husband to have a family. In fact, the reason for allowing gays to marry is that science has dispelled the strongest objections; being gay is not psychopathology, gays do make suitable adoptive parents, and so forth.



Yes it is. Changing the status quo would create a burden on everyone else, and the status quo is not unfair or unequal. That's the difference between this and gay marriage; allowing gay marriage does not impose such a burden.



Yes, yes, of course. Pointing out your error is "acting like a child". No, I don't agree that they are insignificant; all I did was point out that, insignificant or not, they exist. You were in such an all-fired hurry to argue with what I was saying that you ended up agreeing to it because you didn't think it through carefully. Sorry.



You keep trying to pretend that this is exclusively a question of contracts. Marriage is not a normal contract. When two people are married, it obligates 3rd parties in ways that other contracts do not.

Contracting with a disabled person does not somehow obligate 3rd parties to provide any benefits. Getting married, on the other hand, does.



You couldn't care less, and yet you keep making lengthy responses.... You just keep repeating that it's weak when what weak really means here is "won't agree to your flawed understanding of the concept of equality."



No, not at all. It's valid right now. You're just being silly. Everyone has one. I want two. You just got done saying above "but what if I want to use the contract this way?" So what? Who cares what you, ro anyone else, wants? That's not the issue. Society does not need to adjust itself to what you want.



Yes they do. You're trying to claim that being gay is somehow the same theing as being polygamist or wanting to engage in incest. I see no functional equivalence at all.



I don't see that society has any obligation to change things or give up its power to regulate what's an acceptable family relationship and what isn't. Seeing as how society pays the tab for cleaning up the mess resulting from failed familes, I don't see what "scared" has to do with it except maybe making it sound better on the internet.



In your subjective view. Evidently, very few people agree. And here we come to another problem. You keep insisting they are minor, but don't want to convince me. Presumably you don't want to convince anyone else, either. Since evaluation of whether they are minor or major is in the subjective judgement of society at large, you've got little room to complain. You keep wanting me to convince you that they're major, but I don't need to. I'm not terribly worried that polygamy or incest is suddenly going to be legalized.



Again, since it's subjective this is hardly a criticism. Clearly, your assessment of minor problems isn't credible to very many people; there's been no serious movement to include polygamists or incestuous people in gay marriage movements.



In that case, I suggest you resign yourself to seeing only laws that don't meet your personal standards. I also find it rather amusing that you keep arguing with me, but only seem to "not care about convincing me" when I ask you for a reason for your views.

I don't care about convincing you, except insofar as I'd be rather disappointed to see someone vote against same-sex marriage simply because the result might offend their abstract ideas of consistency. Then, I don't need to convince you because I see no reason to believe that your subjective assessments are likely to convince anyone.


[/quote]

Clearly. However, you're not torn on whether gays should be allowed to marry. You're torn on whether to vote for a bill that doesn't include incest, polygamy, or whatever else. None of the rest are major social issues. Practically no one seriously thinks that polygamy is ok; it's practiced by people in the habit of marrying off 14 year olds to older men and people on reality TV that don't seem to be altogether stable either, and that's just in THIS country. As for incest, there's the unavoidable fact that it does increase significantly the risk of congenital birth defects, and there is the simple fact that we cannot necessarily assume that an adult is capable of consenting to a relationship with a close family member due to myriad psychological issues involved. I'm not going to waste time convincing you that there are psychological issues surrounding incest either; if you're going to insist that I simply re-cite a bunch of scientific work to your satisfaction just because it contradicts your positions then you're too pedantic to bother with.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not if you had read it. Or my other previous posts where you say "I'm not convinced" and I reply "ok."



And I've pointed out that I disagree with your assessment.



Since I raised the issue, it is indeed the issue.



It does. Again, there has to be legitimate reason for restricting access to benefits. There isn't.



No, the magic of get off your *** and solve the problem. The magic of I'm not afraid to confront a paperwork issue. The magic of paperwork and bureaucracy is not a legitimate reason for restricting access to a contract. The magic of I'm quite confident such minor issues can be resolved.



If we give it to others, and deny them for no legitimate reason, I think that may be the definition of unfair.



More imaginary problems.



Yes, I'm assuming consenting adults, since that's the basis of the discussion. More slippery slope nonsense. Furthermore, what contract are you referring to? The contract I'm referring to does not exist yet, would have to be created, and would obviously not be regulating sex. You know this, since I've said numerous times the government should not be regulating sex.



Yes, I think we do. Please refer to... all of my posts in this thread....



Um, your definition of "freaking out" needs work. "Freaking out" =/ starting a discussion. Furthermore, if you'd read my posts, you'd know I'm not particularly concerned about polygamy and could be swayed either direction on that based on a GOOD argument.



/facepalm. Seriously, man, what part of "consenting adults" are you missing? I'm not talking about being able to contract with someone that doesn't want to contract with you. You've done this several times now. Is the only way to make your case to distort the argument?



If a brother/sister wanted to adopt, why does it make sense that two unrelated men should be able to, whereas a brother and sister should not?



No undue burden has been established.



/DE on. Apology accepted. /DE off.



The contract in question would have to be written in such a way that deals with these minor issues.



And yet, as you say, the disabled individual already has the right to get married. So from the 3rd party perspective, why do I care if they marry their brother or someone they aren't related to? How does that affect me?



I started the thread, and I'm happy to discuss. As for if you think I have a flawed understanding or not - don't care. Your certainly not swaying me with poor comparisons and slippery slope fallacies.



No, I'm not supporting giving an individual more rights than others - quite the opposite, please pay attention. Your example here has you suggesting you should be able to do something everyone else cannot. That's not comparable at all.



Nobody's suggested incest - why are you bringing that up? What's the difference between two men who are unrelated and two men who are related? What is so different that justifies giving one pair access to a domestic contract and not the other? The only answers relate to things the government should not be regulating.



There you have it. Arguments against come down to government regulating family. I can't buy into that. I *like* the idea of a traditional family unit, but recognize it's not my place to enforce this on others.



Of course it is subjective. And no, I'm hardly concerned enough about this issue to make it a crusade. So on this point you are entirely correct. Actually, I stated this in the OP. If gay marriage is approved, this issue dies. Nobody cares about the remaining portion of the population.



Nobody's talking about incestuous people. And it is not these minor issues that keep people from supporting polygamy. It's people's lack of support for polygamy.



Ok. I'm glad you're amused.



In other words, I'm torn about whether to vote for or against the gay marriage bill, which you just admitted was a big deal.



So every reason and issue surrounding a major social issue must in and of itself be a major social issue? WTF are you talking about?



Swing and a miss. This argument fails at "consenting adults". Try again.



Swing and a miss. This argument fails at "domestic union not involving the regulation of sex". Incest could still be illegal, if found appropriate, which I'm dubious about. We're not talking about regulating sexual relationships, we're talking about a domestic contract.



Swing and a miss. Argument fails at "consenting adults".



No, please pass, since nobody's talking about incest but you.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

These constitute the vast minority of your posts. Although I must admire your willingness to continue rather than simply washing your hands of the affair in a show of faux ire that I won't just agree with what you have to say, that doesn't square well with "I don't care" either.



Yes, and? I've pointed out why my assessment agrees with the concept of equality. You haven't done the same; you've tried to but you haven't accounted for the fact that just because people want to do something doesn't make it unequal if they can't.



And it has been more than adequately dealt with. I pointed out that the same rules apply to everyone. That's equality. Continuing to insist that equality is the issue just ebcause you posted about it originally doesn't change that.



You're engaging in a circular argument. The only apparent reason you have for the reasons to be legitimate is the fact that they limit access to benefits.

More importantly, since the law offers the same benefits to everyone, they are not "restricted".



No one is restricting access to any contracts. People can engage in a contract for whatever they want. You're arguing for societal recognition of a contract by everyone else which is what marriage does. If all you want is a contract, go write one, get some powers of attorney done, whatever.

Society does not need to "solve" these problems just because your notions are offended. Why should anyone get off their *** and solve problems that are created only to satisfy the extreme minority of you that "inequality" has been dealt with, especially whent hat "inequality" doesn't seem to conform to any known idea of inequality in the first place?



We aren't giving them to others and denying them. We're offering them to everyone, and "they" are saying "no I want different benefits to exist".

As for legitimate reason, you've given no indication of what you think IS a legitimate reason, leading me to believe that you think any reason is inherently illegitimate.



Ahh, costing money to third parties is now "imaginary" because Arathain Says So. Just as I suspected, no problem is too large to be handwaved.



You have yet to give a good reasont he government shouldn't be regulating sex, given the number of different types of sexual assault and abuse that can and do occur. Second, you cannot assume consenting adults as the basis of the discussion. I'm contesting the validity of the consent in question. What you're doing is begging the question, Third, this is not a slippery slope; these problems already exist.

As for this "contract that doesn't exist" that's just re-naming marriage and pretending to solve a problem that doesn't exist anyhow. You can already have that contract now; it just doesn't obligate third parties to do anything. Simply re-naming marriage as a "civil union" or whatever, pretending it's only a contract and then telling everyone "See? Problem solved! No more government in marriage!" is just insulting everyone's intelligence and calling it a "solution".



You're the one that's "torn" over this, not me. You're the one that wants to argue with my reasons why you should vote for the bill rather than just think to yourself "OK, well, noted, but I don't agree with DE" or even just say that. My definition of freaking out is obviously pretty good.

As for polygamy, I keep pointing out the problems associated with allowing polygamous marriage and the potential for abuse, fraud, and general confusion associated with it and you just keep saying "Nope! Nope!" without giving any reason other than "but it's not equal!" and when that's dispelled you go on to "legitimate reasons" which apparently is a highly fluid goalpost where you can simply claim any reason is "illegitimate".



Because you don't seem to get this. Marriage is not exclusively a contract. It includes a contract, but it also creates obligations on third parties; anywhere the couple is allowed to be considered jointly, or anywhere one spouse gains access to by right of marriage to the other. If it's just a contract, that creates only obligations to each other. Next time you go to file taxes jointly you're **** out of luck.

>>>



People who are not married can already adopt. I'm not entirely sure anything DOES prohibit a brother and sister from adopting together. That does, however, create the problem that your mom and dad are now also your aunt and uncle. Why do we need to turn our basic family structure on end just so people that can't figure out they are not supposed to **** their sister can have whatever they want?



No undue burden has been established.[/quote]

Yes it has. There is no legal or social imperative to create any burden at all, therefore any burden is undue. Gay marriage imposes no burden on anyone and so does not create a problem.



You keep saying they're "minor" as if you've established this. Creating a contract that binds nonsignatory parties is hardly a minor issue. You, in fact, can't do it without it becoming more than a contract.

As for how it would be written, you haven't established that it can be satisfactorily written at all. You want everyone else to "not be lazy" and "solve the problem", but it's a problem you're concerned about. You quit being lazy. You solve the problem.



You now have to provide any benefits that pertain to couples. If they marry more than one person, your costs go up as you have to provide to more and more people. As a taxpayer, you must pay the bill for government benefits of the same nature, and if they are of the same family, the social problems and possible birth defects of incest must be paid on your dime too.



I haven't made any slippery slope fallacies. We already know that sexual assault, sexual abuse and other problems exist.



No, my examples suggest no such thing. I'm paying attention just fine. You're just not able to comprehend that the concept of equality does not extend to making everyone happy - or rather, you're demanding equality of outcome.



You've used numerous examplees involving brothers and sisters and the like. Oh, because they aren't having sex? How do you know they aren't? Furthermroe, how is it anything but incestuous, sexual or not? Are you aware of some more appropriate term? Or is this just being pedantic?



Except that they relate to things the government should be regulating. Society says so. We have government of, by and for the people, and we have state governments that are permitted to regulate such things. The only way they shouldn't be is if the citizens of that state don't want it.



We're not talking about the government "regulating family". We're talking about a benefit that is there to make having a family easier, and why it is not unequal if it's not available for other purposes.

As for regulating family, the taxpayer picks up the tab when a family disintegrates, so there certainly should be regulations on family. Inhenerntly problematic types of relationships, such as incestuous ones, should not be permitted.



Yes, and that is because being a polygamist or wanting to be in an incestuous relationship is not equivalent to being homosexual or bisexual.



And people don't support polygamy because of these issues, because they are not minor to anyone but you and a small minority. As for incestuous people, you used various close family relationships repeatedly throughout this post. We are talking about them. That is the height of dishonesty.



Yes. The reasons you're torn on it, however, are not, except to you.



I said no such thing and have no idea what you're talking about. Try and stay on topic.



BZZZT. Wrong. You cannot assume consent where there are existing power and family dynamics, just like you could not assume that 14 year old was consenting just because they suddenly reached 18. You don't seem to understand that when people engage in relationships in these kinds of dynamics such as polygamy or incest, there is a very, very high likelyhood of underlying problems. People are normally biologically programmed to avoid relationships that are too close in blood relationship; that's why most guys do not consider their sister hot even if she's hot to practically everyone else. In the case of polygamy, that contains power elements that do not conform to our ideas of gender equality and are unavoidable.



No we aren't. We're talking about marriage.

If you only want a contract, you can create one as it stands. What you want is not just a contract, but one that includes all the benefits of marriage as well. Here's a hint: The marriage contract is not what provides the benefits. Benefits are what you get from everyone else who is not a party to the marriage contract and since other people provide that, they get a vote int he rules under which you can marry.

All you're talking about is re-naming marriage as something else, then telling everyone else "you still have to provide the benefits, but you can't 'regulate' anything." Essentially, you're just advocating robbery of the taxpayer and calling it "equality".



You cannot refute an argument that calls consent into question by claiming "we're talking about consenting adults". We aren't. We're talking about adults, the consent of whom is unknown.

[/quote]

You can stop lying now. We've been talking about incest since the beginning and you just now decided to claim we aren't. You keep claiming we're "not regulating sex", and talking about wanting brothers and sisters to be able to have this "contract" with each other. The fact that some who aren't interested in each other sexually would want it does not change the fact that those who are would flock to it.

Keep on about this mysterious domestic contract, though. What exactly is stopping you from creating it yourself?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, and? We should allow bread stealing because some people are poor?

No, sorry.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE, by the time you break other people's posts down into more than about 4 pieces, I usually stop reading you because it just gets tedious trying to keep the back and forth he said/she said bickering straight, but scanning through to see if anybody else had posted after you, I couldn't help but notice your assertion that other people in this thread are talking about incest.

I'd like to challenge you to go ahead and demonstrate where somebody has suggested that expanding domestic partnership to not be restricted to relationships that are explicitly and necessarily sexual was condoning or supporting incest.

Honestly, I'd like to see who was saying that.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

My assertion is that I've been pointing it out since the beginning of the discussion with Arathain. He and I are the only people who have been discussing it.

As for your complaints about my posting, it's A) interesting that you don't bother talking about this to Arathain, even though he does the same thing regularly and B) not my problem. If you don't want to read it, don't.



I'd like to challenge you to demonstrate that I was talking about anyone other than the discussion Arathain and I were having. If that was unclear, my apologies... but I know it wasn't THAT unclear, Arathain's attempt to insert Leshani's new idea into the discussion I was having with him notwithstanding.



Arathain has been talking about: brothers, sisters, fathers, et all since the very beginning. He, furthermore, has been clearly saying "we can't regulate sex". If we're not regulating sex, then how is that anything other than allowing it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Okay, hold on. I usually *don't* talk to you about it, because I just stop reading. The only time I did talk about it this time is, I noticed a small part of your post, and wanted to point out that I haven't been following the rest and am thus not engaging those parts of the post. For the record, I haven't been reading Arathain for the past page or so, either; that's part of why I was curious who was talking about incest -- I thought maybe I'd missed it.

In any event, why should we regulate sex? Consenting adults, right? Certainly, there's a societal interest in incestuous reproduction; however that's only even a hazard in 50% of any sibling sexual pairings -- gays and lesbians don't produce kids, whether they're related or not.

And that's even *assuming* that all marriages must have a sexual component. Which is an even more spurious assumption when you replace them, as both Arathain and I (and Arathain was advocating that it was his preference before Leshani posted -- so I don't see why you consider that a separate injection into his conversation with you) have indicated since the beginning that we preferred.

In any event, surely we have other ways to regulate reproduction than to ban contracts whose signatories *might* be having sex.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

No, I am interested in your viewpoint, of course. I don't care that you aren't convinced.



It does if you provide those benefits to others, and deny them for no good reason.



Except they aren't. If it's opened up to homosexuals, the basis for that division no longer makes sense.



Yes, they are. You are restricted as to whom you can enter into the contract with.



That's not true. The marriage contract provides rights to next of kin, decision-making abilities when your spouse is incapacitated, and default property rights in the event of death. There are many more benefits outside of being recognized by 3rd parties.



Because I say they should. Why shouldn't they? Because you say they shouldn't? The fact you don't see the issue as significant is fine and dandy - I do. I don't care how small the minority is, one of the few jobs of government is to protect minorities.



Incorrect. Access is limited to the contract, for no good reason.



If I see a good reason to limit access, I'll let you know. I've already said that I see potential for a legitimate reason to oppose polygamy. Don't see one, but there's potential for something I'm missing. Certainly none of the reasons you've provided.



It's an imaginary problem. Like you say - anyone can get married, right? So why does it matter to WHOM I get married, from a 3rd party perspective? Why does it cost them more for me to contract with one individual over another?



I'm not talking about assault, or rape, and none of these are addressed by the current situation anyway. There's nothing about the situation that would change that would suddenly make partner abuse a problem. Furthermore, since I'm talking about benefits and not a sexual relationship, sex is not involved in this. Shouldn't be. Otherwise, government is supporting marriage between gays only because they are having sex. Or is it love? Should they regulate love?



Not at all.



Not a bit. So you're upset I'm still discussing this with you? /boggle



Any reason you've provided has not been convincing. Like I said, there may well be a legitimate reason to outlaw polygamy, but I haven't seen it yet.



If marriage includes a contract, then it requires consenting adults. At any rate, I'm only talking about a contract, nothing more.



I think you're mistaken on this. Two single people cannot jointly adopt from anything I've seen. That may vary from state to state, but it can't be done here.



Who said anything about **** their sister? Manipulating the argument again so you can make a point? Who cares if mom and dad are now aunt and uncle? Is that worse than living in an orphanage? More imaginary problems.



No burden is caused that is any greater than that caused by gay marriage.



And yet your principal argument is that everyone is already allowed to marry. If I marry person X over person Y it creates no additional burden on nonsignatories.



That's just dumb. You're smarter than that. I'm neither a lawyer nor a legislator. Not my job. It's my job to tell legislators to look into it.



Incest? Why are you talking about incest?



Yes - already exist - in marriages - in singles - and elsewhere. So... this wouldn't change that. You're only bringing this up to show a slippery slope into something that already exists....



Clearly you're not paying attention since I've never suggested equality of outcome. That would involve people being required to marry others. That's retarded.



How do I know they aren't now? It's a domestic contract, not a license to have sex. If it's not sexual, all your arguments about birth defects and the like go out the window.



Ok, I can get on board with that, provided it doesn't involve tyranny of the majority. At least now we are making some progress. You feel they should regulate it, I don't. You agree that it's just a matter of what the people want, and not some other illegitimate reason. In fact, "what the people want" is the first good rationale for policy that you've come up with. It's also the crux of the discussion. I've made clear what I want, and we'll find out what the people want in November.



You're the only one talking about incest.



Nobody's talking about incest. Man, you really need to change the argument to make your point, don't you?



We're talking about domestic contracts. The brother/sister scenario is used as an example because it's outlawed. Other examples exist, such as two friends who do not want to be married in the traditional sense, since they are not sexually involved, but this is more easily handwaved away because with gay marriage they could go and get a contract and pretend they're gay. It's not as obvious an issue. Nobody is talking about interfamily sex except you.



I'm trying to decide whether to vote for a major social issue. The pros and cons I'm weighing on this issue are being discussed. You just started crying about how the pros and cons by themselves are not major social issues. Focus, man. Focus.



No, see, I'm talking about consenting adults. You're saying they might not consent? Well, that might be a problem, and help should be provided for people who are coerced. Still, THESE PROBLEMS ALREADY EXIST. Should we outlaw financial contracts because women sometimes get coerced into signing things? Of course not. You provide the opportunities and deal with the problems. There would be no new problems resulting from this. Consenting adults, man, consenting adults.



We're not talking about 3rd parties, we're talking about government. The government makes allowances to married couples that you cannot get by creating some other contract. If there's some benefit from a private entity that you're worried about, name it. There may be tons. Perhaps these need to be excluded. Perhaps they don't.



Re-naming marriage is close to accurate. It's really like breaking apart the civil and religious components. The rest of your statement is just more change the argument nonsense.



Imaginary problems. Issues like this already exist. You make it required to be a consenting adult, and you do your best to prevent breaking the law. That's the way it always goes.



Who cares if they flock to it? If two people wanted to have sex, they will anyway. This doesn't affect that in any way.

[/quote]

That's retarded. Give me a break.

This thread is as fascinating as watching chess masters play Trouble.

_________________

The formatting of quotes and whatnot is, indeed, tedious. On one hand, it makes it easier to respond, as you just go down the thread, but it can be annoying. It also promotes me saying the same thing over and over "i'm not talking about incest" which furthers the tediousness.

That said, I go through the posts from the top, and just responded, again, in the same fashion. I'll summarize better in my next response.

For the record, I have not ever condoned or promoted incest. DE's running with this on his own.

No, actually. Leshani's idea is not new. It is exactly what I've wanted for years. It's the only legitimate solution to the "gay marriage problem" that I can see, from a logical standpoint.