Prop 8 over turned - Page 12 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#**166** 08-06-2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Currently, is there any difference between the two? From what I see, you get a license to get married and the official is the only difference. With a church wedding, I have someone who is ordained in some ministry giving the final OK vs a Justice of the Peace. The way I see it, the difference between my civil union and your marriage is that yours is blessed by some imaginary being while mine is by a real person.

Do all states currently have "civil unions" that give gay couples exactly the same rights as married couples? Are private companies required by law to extend the same rights?

Once the answer to those questions is yes, it will just become an issue of language.

JollyRoger · #**167** 08-06-2010, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

The suggestion was to have the state eliminate the "marriage contract" for everyone and replace it with something else. The churches can keep the word "marriage" and make whatever rules they like, of course it won't matter to the state.

If playing word games is the best solution for the problem, who cares. But legally, a cohabitation agreement is known as a "marriage contract" and the state's recognition of it is known as a "marriage license". Atheists get married too. "Marriage" is not a word owned by the church, and last I heard, the church, when it comes to interfering in the legal system of the United States, can go pound sand.

JollyRoger · #**168** 08-06-2010, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Marriage is, or has been BOTH a legal contract AND an "institution".
I have no issue from the legal contract side of the issue; you made that argument well.
Its from the " institution" side that I have some conflict. I haven't checked, but I would tend to think that "institution" is religious language reflecting the historical and biblical understanding that marriage was instituted by the Creator. It would therefore be a holdover from when governments were involved in religious affairs. Perhaps we need a clearer distinction between the state marriage and the religious one. Since the laws have been written the way they were, "marriage" is the term that is used to convey the whole list of rights you listed. I see no practical way to unwind the way the term has both a civil and a religious meaning.
So we have civil marriage performed by a state-licensed officiate, and a religious ceremony performed by a licensed minister; sometimes the same "officiate" fulfills both roles.
As much as I desire to preserve the term "marriage" for the religious ceremony only, I see no practical means to do that in out pluralistic society.

The distinctions belong in a church. The church is seperated from the state. We are all equal before the law. Atheists get married to. Tell the church to go pound it.

#**169** 08-06-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The distinctions belong in a church. The church is seperated from the state. We are all equal before the law. Atheists get married to. Tell the church to go pound it.

I think you will lose that fight, so why not go the other way and let them keep their word? The real goal is legal equality, not the rights to the terminology. Don't let yourself be distracted by red herring arguments. The crazies know they will eventually lose the legal issue, these "language" arguments are just tactics to keep their base interested and avoid the real issue.

Scruffyguy1981 · #**170** 08-06-2010, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

If playing word games is the best solution for the problem, who cares. But legally, a cohabitation agreement is known as a "marriage contract" and the state's recognition of it is known as a "marriage license". Atheists get married too. "Marriage" is not a word owned by the church, and last I heard, the church, when it comes to interfering in the legal system of the United States, can go pound sand.

Unless you live in Utah. Church, government - it's pretty much one in the same.

davidmash · #**171** 08-06-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

I personally don't believe in nor do I practice marriage, but I have no problem with others doing so. You confuse marriage with sacredness, there was marriage before religion no doubt. Societies have always understood the advantage that hetrosexual bonded child rearing provides. It's got the proven track record you can't deny, its not perfect by any means but it is by far the greatest predictor of success. Deal with it!

I guess it depends on how marriage is defined. Currently it is a religious institution that co-opted the state to help protect it. Yes there were unions of people prior to the advent of modern religion but that is neither here nor there.

Procreation will take place with or with out the institution of marriage. It is the primary purpose of every species on the planet.

If you can provide any legal based argument that the state has a interest in protecting marriage I all ears. Thus far you have provided no such argument.

aklim · #**172** 08-06-2010, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

Procreation will take place with or with out the institution of marriage. It is the primary purpose of every species on the planet.

It might have been our primary purpose when we were cavemen but I don't think it is at this point. Using that argument, govt would have a compelling interest to see that you procreate. So, if you and the wife can't have offspring, you might need to divorce her and mate with someone else who can.

Scruffyguy1981 · #**173** 08-06-2010, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

It might have been our primary purpose when we were cavemen but I don't think it is at this point. Using that argument, govt would have a compelling interest to see that you procreate. So, if you and the wife can't have offspring, you might need to divorce her and mate with someone else who can.

If anything our government should have compelling interest to limit our population, at least it's rate of growth.

Maybe that's why there are so many gay people in recent years - nature sees there is a problem and knows we will not do anything to fix it. The result, population control so the species can survive.

Billybob · #**174** 08-06-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Ducking the issue again. Sort of predictable, when you're debated into a corner, and your argument looks like Swiss cheese, presto - out comes the "liberal" straw man. Of course we can't forget the ad hominem. Hard to tell really, which one is your preferred exit strategy from a losing argument, they both get so much use.

Precisely the opposite, in your earlier post you posed a false premise:

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

You just made the point that has been repeated to you in myriad ways.

Why would the state desire successful progeny? More mouths to feed, more crowding, more everything the state has to provide. Seems backwards to me, the state has compelling interest in favoring non-reproductive couples.

To which I responded:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

I specified successful progeny not liberals, successful progeny don't need the state to feed them, house them, or provide them anything. It is the unsuccessful progeny who are ideologically liberal always sucking off the teat of the nanny state, always demanding someone else do for them that which they are incapable of doing for themselves, always seeing every difference in outcome as the result of manifest unfairness.

My own personal political platform would advocate the sterilization of liberals to prevent further manifestation of that particular mental disorder.

I directly addressed that question at hand, "Why would the state desire successful progeny? "

As for your ad hominem claim, who is the argument’s opponent whose character has been attacked, as opposed to answering his argument? It appears that although you frequently make the charge of ad hominem you could use a refresher as to the definition: “An ad-hominem argument attacks an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”

Or is it similar to the oft deployed tactic of calling out “troll/trolling” in an attempt to smear or infer negative value to a person or position.

MTI · #**175** 08-06-2010, 01:37 PM

Ah, the victim card gets played . . . well done, sir.

aklim · #**176** 08-06-2010, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffyguy1981

If anything our government should have compelling interest to limit our population, at least it's rate of growth.

Maybe that's why there are so many gay people in recent years - nature sees there is a problem and knows we will not do anything to fix it. The result, population control so the species can survive.

I think the govt can't even handle it's current responsibilities so maybe, new items are not a good idea.

I doubt nature is a sentient being and is able to decide much. We seem to think that nature is a sentient being and can make changes here and there as it sees fit.

Scruffyguy1981 · #**177** 08-06-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

“An ad-hominem argument attacks an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”

So does this statement not qualify based on that definition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

My own personal political platform would advocate the sterilization of liberals to prevent further manifestation of that particular mental disorder.

Billybob · #**178** 08-06-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruffyguy1981

If anything our government should have compelling interest to limit our population, at least it's rate of growth.

Maybe that's why there are so many gay people in recent years - nature sees there is a problem and knows we will not do anything to fix it. The result, population control so the species can survive.

The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2009 is 2.05 children per woman,[5] which is slightly lower than the replacement level of 2.1.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

Presently population growth in the US is driven by immigration with illegal immigration being the largest factor.

JollyRoger · #**179** 08-06-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I think you will lose that fight, so why not go the other way and let them keep their word? The real goal is legal equality, not the rights to the terminology. Don't let yourself be distracted by red herring arguments. The crazies know they will eventually lose the legal issue, these "language" arguments are just tactics to keep their base interested and avoid the real issue.

Lose the fight? Why do you think Prop 8 got kicked out on it's ear?

JollyRoger · #**180** 08-06-2010, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Ah, the victim card gets played . . . well done, sir.

The guy is amazing, whining about "ad hominem attacks" right after he screams that liberals should be sterilized. Hey, where have we heard the old "sterilization" argument before?