Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Row6

What the government recognizes is the issue, not practices (In most states sodomy and other laws concerning sexual relations either no longer exist or are not enforced). Being married is a commonly accepted and understood arrangement between two adults which carries similarly commonly understood legal rights and responsibilities. Confusing this issue in ways which would require carrying your "contract" with you and having a lawyer sit in on transactions, in the interests of not offending a dwindling number of citizens - who are not so much motivated by broad minded acceptance of others life style choices, but conversely are intolerant of them - who wish to throw out the marriage baby with the bath water if they are no longer able to limit it as they wish is fortunately not going to happen, while including monogamous gays in that institution almost certainly will.

It can still be a common societal phrase, and you can still go through the hoopla. What marriage is from a government point of view is simply a standardized contract, that has a fancy title plus some other perks. And do you carry your contract around with you now? Why would you have to do it in a non-marriage-as-an-institution world? And it can still be standardized. No reason why a standard contract can't be found on legal zoom.

The government has reached it's tentacles far and wide. When that happens there are consequences. Tyranny of the majority.

I'm for removing the tentacles and protecting property rights and contracts.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Actually, you make an excellent analogous point about polygamy that applies equally to the militant rescue of homosexuality from the perversion bin, and its politically correct recycling / repackaging by the homosexual agenda ("HSA") as suddenly acceptable for mainstream society. I would note that polygamy has historically been slightly more acceptable to the males of the species, for obvious - and superficial, IMO - reasons, and thus, not tucked quite as far into the perversion bin as homosexuality historically has been.

So what should we expect to creep out of the perversion bin next for mainstream consumption as OK behavior ? NAMBLA's or any other pedophilia groups' agenda, arguing that grown men should be able to have sex with juvenile males / children ? After all, the ancient Greeks indulged in such "natural" acts, and we are soooo much more culturally advanced (in our smugly hip, sophistication) than they were.

How about sex with beasts ? Sex with daughters and sons, nephews and nieces ?

By comparison, ideas such as polygamy seem somewhat docile. But maybe that is the ultimate point: like the frog in the slowly warming pot, culture tends to not notice subtle shifts in the acceptance of perverted behavior if they incrementally advanced slowly over time, and if the propagandizing of the urged, acceptable perversion is always differentiated from more extreme examples . . . from the bin.

And yet the promoters of polygamy on TH are the "conservatives". They claim consistency, but only by ignoring the equal protection basis for monogamous gay marriages, a legal basis that does not apply to polygamy, frog on bird, man on Santorum, or whatever other unique relationships their fertile minds can imagine.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

And yet the promoters of polygamy on TH are the "conservatives". They claim consistency, but only by ignoring the equal protection basis for monogamous gay marriages, a legal basis that does not apply to polygamy, frog on bird, man on Santorum, or whatever other unique relationships their fertile minds can imagine.

There will never be complete consistency or perfect symmetry in the argument - actually on either side - because one view accepts as a fundamental premise that homosexual (insert any other of your choice) behavior is perverted on the basis of a moral distinction, and the other does not.

I totally understand that you would want to stay away from the moral POV, and make your arguments along political lines.

Politics and amorality can indeed make fine bedfellows, in a politically correct atmosphere.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

It can still be a common societal phrase, and you can still go through the hoopla. What marriage is from a government point of view is simply a standardized contract, that has a fancy title plus some other perks. And do you carry your contract around with you now? Why would you have to do it in a non-marriage-as-an-institution world? And it can still be standardized. No reason why a standard contract can't be found on legal zoom.

The government has reached it's tentacles far and wide. When that happens there are consequences. Tyranny of the majority.

I'm for removing the tentacles and protecting property rights and contracts.

1 No I don't carry my contract aruund now, because when I tell people I am married to my wife, they understand what I mean. In your hypothetical that would not be the case.

2 What is the point of this effort to confuse what is now simple and basic to not only the legality but the cultural meaning of this societal building block? It is derived and promoted by those who would rather destroy the institution than allow it to be sullied in their imagination by gay people, not because they are broad minded proponents of tolerance.

3 Marriage existed long before our government and if anything, it's "control" is diminished compared to our past. Whatever "tentacles" you sense are in your own mind, and no doubt your descriptive term indicates your hostility to what all societies demand - a framework for understanding the members of society and their familial relationships. This is not some new socialistic construct but an ancient part of every society from simple tribes to modern empires and everything between.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

There will never be complete consistency or perfect symmetry in the argument - actually on either side - because one view accepts as a fundamental premise that homosexual (insert any other of your choice) behavior is perverted on the basis of a moral distinction, and the other does not.

I totally understand that you would want to stay away from the moral POV, and make your arguments along political lines.

Politics and amorality can indeed make fine bedfellows, in a politically correct atmosphere.

OK, but I'm fine with making a moral argument for gay marriages. I don't care enough about polygamy - or the myriad other possibilities - to even make the effort, but it seems moot in any case. It won't happen in my life time and I don't sense the same level of injustice and/or lives made difficult for no reason that I do with gay marriages. I could be open to the argument for it, but it remains a separate issue for me.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by Row6

OK, but I'm fine with making a moral argument for gay marriages. I don't care enough about polygamy - or the myriad other possibilities - to even make the effort, but it seems moot in any case. It won't happen in my life time and I don't sense the same level of injustice and/or lives made difficult for no reason that I do with gay marriages. I could be open to the argument for it, but it remains a separate issue for me.

Just as long as you keep open to the possibilities. That's all that matters.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

That's about right, although I also acknowledge that marriage and the laws surrounding it predates the government and is an ancient arrangement present in all cultures in various forms and is many ways one of the few necessary building blocks of it. Saying the government shouldn't recognize it is would be like saying government shouldn't recognize property or families.

Probably a more accurate way to describe it would be that the government wouldn't be limited to acknowledging one particular flavor of the contract. The term "marriage" would be irrelevant (to the government). All that would matter is what the contractual obligations are. The term "property" isn't relevant to the government (at least not without relevant qualifiers)...it is the specific contractual obligations that matter. We have many different types of "property" spelled out by different forms of contracts. Same thing could be done for relationships.

The marriage that you describe in the traditional sense has long been held to be between a man and a woman. That it may never have been spelled out doesn't mean that it was ever designed to be an institution for a man and a man. It's only natural that when a rule change/declaration is made that some will favor the previous interpretation vs. the adjusted one. As reasonable people, we can declare both to be permitted to have their way (in terms of exclusivity of a label). In looking at sports and religion we can see how different factions come about because not everybody agrees with the rule changes; yet all are entitled to their interpretations.

In terms of the impact of the benefits provided by the Federal Government. We need to do a better job assessing "why is it productive for our nation to provide this benefit?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Row6

1 No I don't carry my contract aruund now, because when I tell people I am married to my wife, they understand what I mean. In your hypothetical that would not be the case.

2 What is the point of this effort to confuse what is now simple and basic to not only the legality but the cultural meaning of this societal building block? It is derived and promoted by those who would rather destroy the institution than allow it to be sullied in their imagination by gay people, not because they are broad minded proponents of tolerance.

3 Marriage existed long before our government and if anything, it's "control" is diminished compared to our past. Whatever "tentacles" you sense are in your own mind, and no doubt your descriptive term indicates your hostility to what all societies demand - a framework for understanding the members of society and their familial relationships. This is not some new socialistic construct but an ancient part of every society from simple tribes to modern empires and everything between.

I'm not trying to eliminate marriage from society, but rather from government. So really none of what you mentioned applies. You can still walk down and aisle. Or kiss your bride. Or brides for that matter. Whatever you want.

And I certainly do not want to destroy marriage because I don't want gays to marry. I want to destroy the government marriage business because the government has no jurisdiction over my private life. It's job is to enforce contracts. It's job isn't to discriminate amongst relationship statuses.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by AzCatFan

My basis for comparison is not off; you just don't seem to like it. I looked at three permutations of Schiavo. The case as presented, the case if the couple were gay, and the case if the couple were polygamous and Terri had multiple spouses. And I agree the argument I presented hold for children, but then children have less legal standing as spouse! Which is my entire argument. Spouse is exalted in legal standings, and spouse has the most rights and responsibilities. Allowing for multiple spouses would demote the familial relationship of spouse down to the level of child(ren). Allowing gays to marry, on the other hand, does not.

There are situations where the spouse is not in the picture, and the children do have the same legal standing. Our society handles these situations already, so that a situation like this could occur with spouses is not a new challenge for society to deal with. That's all I'm saying. The issue has come up before, and it has been dealt with.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your opinion even if we don't see eye to eye on that note. The only other thing I want to add is that I think a polygamist would disagree with your necessary link between polygamy and misogyny. That seems to be a rather biased comment with little to no regard of the possibility of such a relationship being able to exist without it. A man can be a misogynist (and married) without having multiple partners. It just seems like an unnecessary link when trying to look at it objectively.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

Invalid question from the OP. Republican does not equate to being conservative, by a long stretch.

In any event, let the whiney bitches have their way. There is no room left for social conservatism. If you disapprove, you hate and are a bigot. May as well quit fighting it.

Politicians kowtowing to a minority group for votes. Nothing new.

Hammer meet nail.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

Probably a more accurate way to describe it would be that the government wouldn't be limited to acknowledging one particular flavor of the contract. The term "marriage" would be irrelevant (to the government). All that would matter is what the contractual obligations are. The term "property" isn't relevant to the government (at least not without relevant qualifiers)...it is the specific contractual obligations that matter. We have many different types of "property" spelled out by different forms of contracts. Same thing could be done for relationships.

The marriage that you describe in the traditional sense has long been held to be between a man and a woman. That it may never have been spelled out doesn't mean that it was ever designed to be an institution for a man and a man. It's only natural that when a rule change/declaration is made that some will favor the previous interpretation vs. the adjusted one. As reasonable people, we can declare both to be permitted to have their way (in terms of exclusivity of a label). In looking at sports and religion we can see how different factions come about because not everybody agrees with the rule changes; yet all are entitled to their interpretations.

In terms of the impact of the benefits provided by the Federal Government. We need to do a better job assessing "why is it productive for our nation to provide this benefit?"

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

I understand your position but still maintain it is a needlessly confusing and a half baked radical solution to a problem that doesn't exist, unless we consider the hurt feelings of some about things that don't concern them to be a problem. No one will force you to marry a man. At some point rules may change and not everyone likes it. Get used to it.

As to some problem with the government's traditional recognition of marriage, there is none to be solved, except again for these same hurt feelings. The benefits of encouraging citizens to form families are too obvious to bother even enumerating, and the governments role of providing the means and/or venue for the enforcement of disputes is also too obvious to bother listing.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

I understand your position but still maintain it is a needlessly confusing and a half baked radical solution to a problem that doesn't exist, unless we consider the hurt feelings of some about things that don't concern them to be a problem. No one will force you to marry a man. At some point rules may change and not everyone likes it. Get used to it.

As to some problem with the government's traditional recognition of marriage, there is none to be solved, except again for these same hurt feelings. The benefits of encouraging citizens to form families are too obvious to bother even enumerating, and the governments role of providing the means and/or venue for the enforcement of disputes is also too obvious to bother listing.

The feelings that are going to be hurt are going to be those of the ones who are discriminated against by private entities on account of not being in a "heterosexual marriage." If you're saying "get over it to them" then I don't have as much of a problem with what you are saying, but if you are intending on forcing a private entity to treat a homosexual marriage as a heterosexual marriage, then I don't think you have the right to push that on another. Again, see my example above about the house for rent.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

I'm not trying to eliminate marriage from society, but rather from government. So really none of what you mentioned applies. You can still walk down and aisle. Or kiss your bride. Or brides for that matter. Whatever you want.

And I certainly do not want to destroy marriage because I don't want gays to marry. I want to destroy the government marriage business because the government has no jurisdiction over my private life. It's job is to enforce contracts. It's job isn't to discriminate amongst relationship statuses.

I understand that, but why would someone try to eliminate the legal organizing principle of our society from the most basic and important legal institution upon which it is founded? I understand that you are offended by the nature of some of the relationships that will be allowed, but no one will force you to partake of one. You need to get used to it. The government certainly does have jurisdiction over certain parts of your private life and this is nothing new or radical in the long history of human societies. If anything that jurisdiction is less than in ancient times, though what we call government was then the tribe.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

The feelings that are going to be hurt are going to be those of the ones who are discriminated against by private entities on account of not being in a "heterosexual marriage." If you're saying "get over it to them" then I don't have as much of a problem with what you are saying, but if you are intending on forcing a private entity to treat a homosexual marriage as a heterosexual marriage, then I don't think you have the right to push that on another. Again, see my example above about the house for rent.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Depending on what the discrimination entails it may or may not be enforceable by the laws of the land, much as racial discrimination is, and that's a good thing. You can't discriminate based on race in certain situation, while in others you can. I can live with that.

[Minister_of_Information]

The argument to abolish marriage rather than allow gays to participate in it reminds me of a group of kids taking their toys and going home rather than accepting a kid they don't like. And that makes me sad, and I won't be a part of it.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Row6

Depending on what the discrimination entails it may or may not be enforceable by the laws of the land, much as racial discrimination is, and that's a good thing. You can't discriminate based on race in certain situation, while in others you can. I can live with that.

What is enforceable by the laws of the land is what is at stake here, though. If we're willing to modify one component of the law, then wouldn't it follow that the other could be modified just the same? We shouldn't attempt to base justification on existing laws otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion about homosexual marriages. The racial discrimination comparisons have been refuted on this site time and time again. And still, racial discrimination is not only legally permissible in certain situations, but it is required in certain situations (see NFL's Rooney Rule and other AA-based policies). Even with that, race is self-identified in this country. You can be whatever race you choose to be.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

There are situations where the spouse is not in the picture, and the children do have the same legal standing. Our society handles these situations already, so that a situation like this could occur with spouses is not a new challenge for society to deal with. That's all I'm saying. The issue has come up before, and it has been dealt with.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your opinion even if we don't see eye to eye on that note. The only other thing I want to add is that I think a polygamist would disagree with your necessary link between polygamy and misogyny. That seems to be a rather biased comment with little to no regard of the possibility of such a relationship being able to exist without it. A man can be a misogynist (and married) without having multiple partners. It just seems like an unnecessary link when trying to look at it objectively.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

The bolded part makes the case. When the spouse is not in the picture, kids are next on the list in terms of familial relationships. But if spouse is in the picture, spouse takes precedence (unless otherwise noted in a will). Allowing multiple spouses, however, would demote the importance of spouse and put spouse on a similar legal standing as that of child(ren).

And true, there is no necessary link between polygamy and misogyny, but look at current polygamous societies in the USA and you will almost certainly find a link. And the point is that link will be a major hindrance towards any pro-polygamy type movement.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by WESGATORS

What is enforceable by the laws of the land is what is at stake here, though. If we're willing to modify one component of the law, then wouldn't it follow that the other could be modified just the same? We shouldn't attempt to base justification on existing laws otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion about homosexual marriages. The racial discrimination comparisons have been refuted on this site time and time again. And still, racial discrimination is not only legally permissible in certain situations, but it is required in certain situations (see NFL's Rooney Rule and other AA-based policies). Even with that, race is self-identified in this country. You can be whatever race you choose to be.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

Laws can always be modified of course, but I happen to agree with the concept that the government should protect citizens from some types of discrimination (can't be denied service at privately owned place of business based on race) while not others (guest to a private dinner must be invited based on racial quotas). I don't accept your proposition that the comparison with racial discrimination has already been refuted on TH - do it again.

[WESGATORS]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The argument to abolish marriage rather than allow gays to participate in it reminds me of a group of kids taking their toys and going home rather than accepting a kid they don't like. And that makes me sad, and I won't be a part of it.

Yeah, but what if the kids are trying to play basketball and the "kid they don't like" keeps trying to kick the ball. Doesn't it make sense to split the kids up into two groups where one group can play basketball and the other can play soccer? And those that don't wish to play soccer, watch soccer, or talk about soccer don't have to. Those that want to play and watch both certainly may. Granularity solves problems in this case.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The argument to abolish marriage rather than allow gays to participate in it reminds me of a group of kids taking their toys and going home rather than accepting a kid they don't like. And that makes me sad, and I won't be a part of it.

Spoken like a true conservative.