Poop gate has been overpooped

[DeathBooger]

I'll never understand why people care so much about what other people do even though it will never directly affect them. If you're a dude and want to marry another dude or even a donkey, why would I give a crap at all? Do your thing, just don't let your new spouse poop in my garage.

 

[Darkdrium]

I'll never understand why people care so much about what other people do even though it will never directly affect them.

So only people who have been affected by murder should be allowed to protest against murderers.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Your last post specifically stated that marriage has not been defined as a right either in the constitution or in the government, my response was that your claim was incorrect. Loving v. Virginia was the first, but many supreme court cases find constitutional backing for a fundamental right to marriage. This is what I was trying to respond to.

Sure, but the state still decides WHO can marry. The only limitation they have is that it doesn't infringe upon rules defined by the federal government when it comes to the reasons why those persons cannot be married. My point is that the Constitution itself does not mention marriage, and the government is not really responsible to guarantee marriage to everyone/thing that wants to be married regardless of their past history or current relationship status.

Finally, on Loving and Robles: Loving is about race, which means it is not specifically about gay marriage but all of the arguments are the same and the precedent fits. It's funny to me that you reference Hernandez v. Robles, because I frequently use that case to show an example of bad marriage jurisprudence. According to the judges in that case, the real purpose of marriage is to reign in straight male tricksters that would otherwise cheat on their wives and abandon their children. That case makes the assumption that men can't keep it in their pants and marriage laws are the only way to keep them in line. I'm not exactly sure that is the way we want to codify a right to marriage.

The case is total bunk and the judges decision was mostly ridiculous, however they were right about two things. 1) Loving v. Virginia deals with something completely different, the relation is only cursory (a group of people who want to get married can't get married.... that is really where the relation stops), and 2) to decide that everyone who ever believed that marriage was between a man and a woman was wrong should certainly not be done lightly.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

So only people who have been affected by murder should be allowed to protest against murderers.

Who protests against murdering?
That would be weird.

You can't really make a statement about being anti-murder, you sort of take it for granted.

Maybe people should do that though, so people who do support murdering will know who to kill

 

[dragonfliet]

I'm saying that the "text of the 14th amendment" that is so commonly used as evidence that marriage should be available for anyone doesn't actually contain anything useful when talking about gay marriage. It has nothing to do with the rulings that have happened in regards to anything. If a ruling is evidence then use the ruling. Additionally, earlier in the thread I was making the point that lots of people who want gay marriage have issues with people being polygamists or in incestuous relationships, but technically those people should still be afforded the "equal protection of the law" if that is the way the decision goes and get married by law themselves. It's not a slippery slope, it's a logical conclusion based on the facts in this case. If "anyone" has the right to marry who they want, then you can't really fairly restrict people from marrying who they want, even if it is multiple people or a very close relation.

As far as Loving v Virginia goes, it hasn't yet set a legal precedent for how gay marriage will work out. A decision in the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles says, in part:

And as we've pointed out there is LOTS of precedent which shows how the amendment is interpreted. We have also pointed out that incest can be demonstrated to be harmful to society in clear and actual ways, which things government has an obligation to prevent (must as how it can deny people the right to vote)--it has always been a ridiculous argument. Polygamy is something that could very clearly be ruled as needed to be allowed. Your point? It is a slippery slope argument, saying we can't allow one thing because another thing might happen, diverting attention from what is being talked about in the first place to beckon to a hypothetical further ruling of the case.

Additionally, for years most societies felt that denying the right to marriage between social castes of between different races was the right thing to do. Such a ruling by the NY court of appeals would have been reluctant to turn over miscegenation laws (which, coincidentally, HAD been ruled as constitutional in the 1800s), but in light of recent precedent, there is no reason to believe that it should be upheld in this case. Additionally, your argument that marriage is not a protection under the law is voided by Loving v Virginia, which decides pretty emphatically that is IS. And while people can be denied a marriage license for a number of reasons (mostly regarding technicalities of government regulation), to do so for exclusionary purposes is not allowed.

~Jason

 

[Darkdrium]

Who protests against murdering?
That would be weird.

So people never speak out against murderers? You've never even heard a teeny bit of anti-murder discourse? Ever? Not against the terrorists of September 2001. Not against the Nazi genocide. Not against the Russian genocide. Not against totalitarian regimes who execute the partisans of opposing ideologies.

I would call that weird myself quite honestly. :/

My point however is that because something does not affect you doesn't mean you don't have a right to speak your mind. In a civil and appropriate way of course, homophobics and any extremists take it too far all the time and you're no longer having a debate but a war of the words.

 

[DeathBooger]

So only people who have been affected by murder should be allowed to protest against murderers.

Where did I say anything about things being allowed? I can't enforce anything. If I could I wouldn't allow you to bend my words. I was just commenting on how I don't get why people care about things that don't directly affect them.

Your argument doesn't even make sense. I'm not really affected if someone is murdered 1000 miles away, but I am affected if someone is murdered in my neighborhood. I'm not really affected if Sven wants to shack up with Gary next door. It's none of my business and I couldn't care less.

 

[Darkdrium]

If I could I wouldn't allow you to bend my words.

No no, all I did was take it to a point where you didn't agree with your own argument.

As to why people care, well that's part because we are humans and we live in a society. Therefore whatever goes on in that society affects us in some way, so we care.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

And as we've pointed out there is LOTS of precedent which shows how the amendment is interpreted.

I wasn't talking specifically about you, but the words contained in the 14th amendment are meaningless in that context without actually PROVIDING the context.

We have also pointed out that incest can be demonstrated to be harmful to society in clear and actual ways, which things government has an obligation to prevent (must as how it can deny people the right to vote)--it has always been a ridiculous argument.

My argument here is that it's only equally as detrimental to society as people who are physically unable to have children with one another. The reasons people might enter into an incestuous marriage might not be for sexual reasons at all.

Polygamy is something that could very clearly be ruled as needed to be allowed. Your point? It is a slippery slope argument, saying we can't allow one thing because another thing might happen, diverting attention from what is being talked about in the first place to beckon to a hypothetical further ruling of the case.

I never said not to allow it because these other things might be allowed. My original point when I brought those things up was that people who are ambivalent toward gay marriage are often extremely uncomfortable about polygamy and incest even though the argument they use to defend gay marriage oftentimes go just as far towards defending those relationships as they do gay marriage. My intent is not to distract from what is being talked about but instead include additional topics that people in these discussions tend to avoid because it is easier to avoid them and make arguments that seem to apply to them than to take them on.

Additionally, for years most societies felt that denying the right to marriage between social castes of between different races was the right thing to do. Such a ruling by the NY court of appeals would have been reluctant to turn over miscegenation laws (which, coincidentally, HAD been ruled as constitutional in the 1800s), but in light of recent precedent, there is no reason to believe that it should be upheld in this case. Additionally, your argument that marriage is not a protection under the law is voided by Loving v Virginia, which decides pretty emphatically that is IS. And while people can be denied a marriage license for a number of reasons (mostly regarding technicalities of government regulation), to do so for exclusionary purposes is not allowed.

The question in my mind is less about who has the right to marry, but what reasons the government has for making marriages legally binding. Aside from things that should not be tied to marriage anyway, there isn't really any purpose in the government doing so.

As I stated earlier in the thread, anyone can have a big ceremony, call it marriage, and marry anything they want. The only thing they lack in this situation is an official document provided by the government. The government is obviously bound to not prevent you from doing that. It doesn't actually change what happened to get that piece of paper at all, so why do they want the piece of paper?

 

[dragonfliet]

My argument here is that it's only equally as detrimental to society as people who are physically unable to have children with one another. The reasons people might enter into an incestuous marriage might not be for sexual reasons at all.

As I stated earlier in the thread, anyone can have a big ceremony, call it marriage, and marry anything they want. The only thing they lack in this situation is an official document provided by the government. The government is obviously bound to not prevent you from doing that. It doesn't actually change what happened to get that piece of paper at all, so why do they want the piece of paper?

1) An incestuous marriage, with its inherently negative genetic repercussions is in no way equally detrimental to society as people who don't reproduce. Those that don't have children are able to adopt and foster--needed roles. The government supporting people who don't have children is helpful, the government giving its approval of unions that inherently carry such negative traits is harmful. If a brother and sister get married they MIGHT not have children, and they MIGHT not produce mutant babies, if a gay couple gets married, they will not have any of these problems; the government recognizing a union is its implicit support of the union and so by letting siblings marry, the government ignores the very problematic genetic issues and promotes such a culture, which could be very bad indeed. Stop pretending these are in any way the same.

2)Why do they want this piece of paper? Because it covers health insurance coverage, power of attorney issues, inheritance, legal proceedings, criminal law, adoption issues, and a whole GAGGLE of other issues. And while a number of them need to be addressed for people in general, some of them (such as health insurance) are only solved via marriage (you cannot cover your sister or friend under your employer's insurance, but you certainly can cover your spouse). The piece of paper argument is ridiculous, it isn't the piece of paper people are after (though having something 'official' is nice), but the rights inherent in that.

~Jason

 

[Phopojijo]

The biggest problem I have with this whole issue is that it is an issue. Sure, it was bound to become an issue at some point because of our terrible legacy views... so we started from total lockdown and we have and are slowly repealing the nonsensicals until we reach our ideal point.

The backlash against repealing this section (not prop 8... gay marriage itself) and allowing gay marriage is an issue that really shouldn't exist.

None of the opposition (except for homosexuals in denial, of course) have any legitimate reason to be against gay marriage.

You don't own trademark over the word "marriage", private institutions are not getting forced to perform these marriages for homosexuals, the union is entirely their business as per privacy laws so long as proper consent (/other applicable laws) are followed, so butt the hell out and save your breath for an issue that actually negatively impacts you in some way, shape, or form.

And to the doomsdayists who claim that allowing gay marriage will call down smite from God... Hurricane Katrina destroyed almost all of New Orleans except where the Gay Pride Parade was scheduled. Seriously.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

1) An incestuous marriage, with its inherently negative genetic repercussions is in no way equally detrimental to society as people who don't reproduce. Those that don't have children are able to adopt and foster--needed roles. The government supporting people who don't have children is helpful, the government giving its approval of unions that inherently carry such negative traits is harmful. If a brother and sister get married they MIGHT not have children, and they MIGHT not produce mutant babies, if a gay couple gets married, they will not have any of these problems; the government recognizing a union is its implicit support of the union and so by letting siblings marry, the government ignores the very problematic genetic issues and promotes such a culture, which could be very bad indeed. Stop pretending these are in any way the same.

I never thought they were the same.

2)Why do they want this piece of paper? Because it covers health insurance coverage, power of attorney issues, inheritance, legal proceedings, criminal law, adoption issues, and a whole GAGGLE of other issues. And while a number of them need to be addressed for people in general, some of them (such as health insurance) are only solved via marriage (you cannot cover your sister or friend under your employer's insurance, but you certainly can cover your spouse). The piece of paper argument is ridiculous, it isn't the piece of paper people are after (though having something 'official' is nice), but the rights inherent in that.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. The government should be looking into WHY each of those things are tied to marriage. If it's out of convenience only, then it should be changed. Why can't your sister be covered under your employer health insurance? Why can't you easily turn over power of attorney, deal with inheritance, work out adoption terms, and a whole GAGGLE of other issues without people getting married? There are plenty of legitimate reasons to do these things WITHOUT being gay, WITHOUT being married, WITHOUT caring about having a sexual relationship with someone else. If people want the rights, work out the rights issues (because there are serious issues there). Marriage shouldn't be lumped into the pie just because it takes care of all the rights issues easily unless marriage is the catch-all for any scenario where those rights need to be given.

There is no "only solved via marriage". That's admitting that problems cannot be fixed unless there is a marriage contract, which is ludicrous.

 

[Firefly]

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dPcUXqZ3cA[/M]
[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCZa3teqC3w[/M]

time for society to move on.

 

[-Jes-]

None of the opposition have any legitimate reason to be against gay marriage.

Quite a few less-than-moderate christians in America would like to have a word with you about that.

You don't own trademark over the word "marriage"

Quite a few less-than-moderate christian churches in America would like to have a word with you about that. (No really, they would!)

As for the smiting deal, guess what less-than-moderate christians will say?
"God works in mysterious ways", and then they'll pretend That's a valid counterpoint.

 

[Darkdrium]

If it's out of convenience only, then it should be changed.

I'd just like to state for the record that the people who work in that sector (Giving "the piece of paper" to each person) are not the most efficient people in the world. It may be done this way not just for convenience, but also for efficiency.

Just saying. I agree with you that people should be able to do what they want out of marriage.

 

[Phopojijo]

Quite a few less-than-moderate christians in America would like to have a word with you about that.

Quite a few less-than-moderate christian churches in America would like to have a word with you about that. (No really, they would!)

As for the smiting deal, guess what less-than-moderate christians will say?
"God works in mysterious ways", and then they'll pretend That's a valid counterpoint.

I'm glad you qualified your comments with "Less-than-moderate" (and "America", though anti-gay-marriage isn't localized to the USA... albeit it is a definite stronghold)... likely to exclude me and others like me (at least like me in this sort of opinion).

 

[Larkin]

That is your argument? When are you going to realize that it most certainly applies?

Right, so your reading compression skills all of a sudden went to zero again? What a pity.

And as we've pointed out there is LOTS of precedent which shows how the amendment is interpreted.

Building an empire by misinterpreting laws. What a wonderful world.

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

you're like that raccoon that keeps scratching at my back door at night.

 

[Larkin]

you're like that raccoon that keeps scratching at my back door at night.

You hating on raccoon/man love? You bigot.

 

[Plumb_Drumb]

I'll take a picture of the next raccoon I take care of; just for you
You can decide whether it's love or not.