Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Might want to watch where you're going, you're liable to trip backpedaling that hard.




Marriage is a legal issue...or weren't you paying attention to the previous few pages?

Dvergar /
Quisling

It isn't "automatic". You still have to do paperwork. This isn't like black people trying to vote during Jim Crow and having to guess how many beans are in a jar. The relevant rights are there if they want them.

The reasons those rights about insurance etc you're referring to exist is because marriage was intended as an inherently unequal relationship. In what we as much as the Greeks would regard as a perfectly equal relationship, they have no use.

You could even - very plausibly - argue that's why the Greeks didn't legalize gay marriage.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

All your arguments (gender identity, social freedom, etc) are sociological.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

FFS can someone teach Aestu to respond in one post and stop double posting every 10 minutes?

Akiina - Priest - Royal Militia
Leeloo Minai Lekarariba-Laminai-Tchai Ekbat De Sebat

There's no worse feeling than that millisecond you're sure you are going to die after leaning your chair back a little too far.

I am aware. I am doing that by design to make the quote trains more readable.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

You weren't asking for a position, you were asking for a set of easily established facts. Given your other statements in this thread, it's clear that even with that list of facts in hand you still don't understand them.


You're still missing the point. If a straight couple wants to get married, they get married and get all of the associated benefits. If a gay couple wants to get married, they can't. That is the inequality. If the gay couple has the foresight and ability to get solid legal documents drafted, they can claim a few of those benefits, but certainly not all. If this is the only one of the points I've made that you can even try to dispute, it's clear that this discussion is well past the point where it can be illuminating.

Laelia Komi Anomalocaris

"Facts" are often a matter of perception. I wanted to know how you perceived them to be so we could discuss the issue in common terms. I've said this numerous times.

If you want to second guess my reasons for asking then you aren't interested in discussing the issue in good faith. This is corroborated by the fact you've opened at least two lines of questioning, then questioned their relevance, suggesting you weren't actually interested in the answer.



And that's fine.

There have been times when equality was a serious issue. Here it is not. The status quo is not so bad it demands changing irrespective of the risks and potentially very bad precedent it would set.

You cannot legislate the power to give without setting a precedent for legislating the power to take away.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

That doesn't make the issue solely sociological. Not when it comes with clear legal rights not available outside marriage.



They've already legislated to take away multiple time in multiple states and federally. Your "dangerous precedent" was set long ago by those seeking to prevent homosexuals from benefiting equally.

Dvergar /
Quisling

In states that haven't passed homosexual marriage acts, gays can still marry someone of the opposite sex...just like everyone else can. So really, nothing is being denied to them. If anything, they're asking for special preference...which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't think we should pretend they're being oppressed when they can do the same thing(s) everyone else can.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Yeah, but they actually can't do the same things everyone else can...because they can't marry the person they would truly want to marry (IE: If you're gay, you fall in love with other dudes...and you couldn't marry the dude you fell in love with because it's illegal).

That's like saying "oh I know you want strawberry ice cream...but all the normal people want vanilla ice cream, so that's all you can order. We're not oppressing you because we're still allowing you to order vanilla ice cream. Strawberry just isn't on our menu...get over it."

I don't think it's "special preference" it's acknowledging that it is possible for someone to be in love with, and want to spend the rest of their life with/have a family with someone of the same sex. Since this is possible, they ought to be able to get the benefits other, heterosexual, couples get when they decide this.

If the issue is love then why quibble about dollars?

You might as well argue that single people are oppressed because they're denied those benefits too.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I guess it comes down to what you view is the bedrock of society. Many people still believe that it is the family. I believe this is true.

Heterosexual couples are given financial benefits because the idea is that these couples make children who will grow up, get jobs, and become good taxpayers. Children are quite expensive, so giving a married couple a little break here and there is designed to encourage procreation, marriage stability, and ultimately a more functioning society.

However, in recent decades, societal values and social norms have shifted. Now, gay couples adopt children and raise them, pool their financial resources, purchase land, and yes, pay taxes. The fact that these people cannot marry has a few side effects:

1. We are saying as a society that a gay relationship is not as valuable as a heterosexual relationship (when it can be just as valuable when gays decide to adopt/have a surrogate mother/etc)
2. We are providing no incentives for gay families to exist based solely on fear that...idk they will raise gay children who won't procreate.
3. Economically, gay society has an extremely positive impact. Take a broken down area of the city and let the gays move in...watch as it transforms into a vibrant center of culture. Preventing gay people from marrying discourages the continued development of such communities.
4. From a social standpoint, we are devaluing true love and the idea that gays might want to make a "more permanent" commitment to one another, which just seems unfair (so yes, I admit it's most definitely a social issue in many respects).


Regardless, most of the hubub about gay marriage is perpetuated by the extremely religious right motivated by fear that allowing gay people to marry will cause us to divulge into a sick society of heathens (as if we aren't already such a society). They worry that little adopted children raised by gay parents will all be weird and devil worshipers and will destroy the very bedrock of society with their pro-gay ideas.

I argue that the only way to strengthen this bedrock (family), is to allow progressive ideas, and non-traditional families to flourish.


Personally, I'd like to see a compromise to get everyone to shut the hell up. Keep marriage between a man and a woman. However, pass a law that allows a "civil union" between members of the same sex. This "civil union" would be granted all the rights that a marriage gives. Then, if individual churches want to "marry" gay people with a ceremony...then let them do that, which is their right under the freedom of religion. If a church doesn't want to marry gay people, then they don't have to.

You say the government shouldn't concern themselves with social issues...but the only resistance comes from people who view these things as social issues.

I blame the gays (and their gay pride parades and their flamboyance) for turning this country into the shitfest its become. Thanks, fags.

My views on the issue have nothing to do with family values.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

If I can marry a woman, and they can marry a woman, it's the same thing. They might not be as happy with it as a heterosexual person might be, but it's the same thing.



This is a terrible analogy, because there are a lot of places where you only get one choice of flavors, and it is vanilla. You still get ice cream, just like everyone else...just now you're asking for rainbow sprinkles.



If it's different from what we're offering everyone else, it's a special preference.



You can't say vanilla isn't good enough, then say you have to have everything that comes with vanilla.

Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore (not because of this, it just hasn't meant anything for a very long time), and I don't see anything wrong with extending something meaningless to another...type of relationship. My thinking is mostly libertarian, and I don't see anything wrong with two consenting adults entering into a contractual obligation with one another. If they want to touch weiners, that's their business...I just wish they'd keep it that way. The country has come a very long way regarding its view and treatment of homosexuals in a very short time (in my lifetime, in fact), but in the past few years I've started to feel like being accepted just isn't enough and now we're expected to pat people on the back, and I become more annoyed with the whole thing every time I have to fucking hear about it.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste