If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[BigBallinStalin]

Thinking about this situation in terms of "rights" really isn't going to help.

"Rights" is a fancy word people use when they state that X cannot be done to them (negative rights) or Y must be done for others (positive rights).

You can't simply point at a place and say, "gee, right X is being enforced there" or "rights A-C are UNIVERSAL and ALL OVER THE PLACE," because none of that is useful.

1. Define terms.
Marriage is a contract; it's an agreement between two parties. Some marriages have religious ceremonies (Catholic), and other marriages do not (atheist/whatever).

2. Insert argument.
e.g.
a. Marriage can only be granted to heterosexual couples because.... [insert benefits and costs of various aspects].
b. Marriage can be granted to both hetero and homosexual couples because.... [insert benefits and costs of various aspects].

And there you go; just don't delve into the "because it's a right" argument. That would be stupid. Same goes for "cuz tradition" [without consequential explanation about a change to tradition----NONE of which has been given], and "cuz bestiality, incest, pedophilia" because that's just stupid. The only people that assert such a stance are pundits, and no one should be as stupid as a pundit ITT.

[Symmetry]

Desperate....

Aye, I think I called your situation correctly.

That's fine. but I did want to ask one thing about your post with all the countries. Do all the countries give the title "rights" for same sex marriage? Or do some of them simply recognize same sex marriage, or some of them don't regulate marriage at all, or some of them have different versions of marriage (like we have civil unions and domestic partnerships for non-traditional situations).

Feel free to investigate as far as your curiosity impels you.

[Phatscotty]

it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.

I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.

If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.

[Juan_Bottom]

North American Indians practiced same-sex marriage before you white people showed up and murdered everybody.

Also, that same argument was used for interracial marriage. "Where in the world and when in history have the races ever mixed?"
Actually, it's still being used by skinheads today.
I can guarantee you that your argument was also used to oppress Women and Negros in American history.

[Juan_Bottom]

[thegreekdog]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

[AndyDufresne]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.

[BigBallinStalin]

it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.

I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.

If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.

In that case, your argument has no standing. Thanks for trolling.

[AndyDufresne]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.

TGD, this is obviously a lie. We all know you never left your dorm room because you were too busy studying the lawz, man.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Can we go back to what the problem is with the following potential law change:

"Gay couples will be recognized as married with respect to federal and state law."

I'm not sure I (still) understand what the problem is.

which means....if passed......that "gender does not matter"......correct?

Correct.

Any thoughts?

TGD, if gender doesn't matter anymore in civilized society, all the men are going to go into women's restrooms. This emphasis on gender is the only thing stopping us.


--Andy

My freshman year of college we had co-ed restrooms and nothing bad happened. I know it's only anecdotal evidence... but still.

Well, that's what they want you to think. Any rapist reserves the right to enter any bathroom he or she pleases, and if the traditional bathroom is thrown out, then uh uh uh uh you're wrong.


I dedicate the above argument to Phatscotty.

[Woodruff]

So because a handful of countries interpret rights extremely Liberally over the last 10 years.....that means it's a right all around the world and for everyone in the world?

Isn't Denmark the same country you tried to use a court case from just a couple of days ago?

[Woodruff]

Also, since 2000 is the first time anyone did this, is it fair to say gay marriage was "invented/created" 12 years ago?

No, it is not. I thought you knew history? Do you only know American history?

[Woodruff]

it's the right of the people to say what marriage is or isn't.

To use your own argument...where is that detailed in the Constitution?

I don't have to "argue" for traditional marriage, or give a reason why it's important (although I have given many). Traditional marriage is what we already have, and it's all we've ever had. I'm not trying to change anything.

This is a lie.

If given the chance, I won't vote in any way to give the government more power, and I will not vote for any particular amendment that increases government spending, and I try to hold that for all issues regardless.

Unless it's to drug test welfare recipients, of course.

[crispybits]

I'm starting to think I may have been a little unfair and PS was actually trying to argue his position, it's just the few sentences and logical fallcies and irrelevant tangents he keeps going back to ARE the extent of his argument. He just doesn't seem to have anything else to back it up with, so it's less a case of unwillingness to provide rational explanations and logical defences, and more a case of inability to do so.

[thegreekdog]

I'm starting to think I may have been a little unfair and PS was actually trying to argue his position, it's just the few sentences and logical fallcies and irrelevant tangents he keeps going back to ARE the extent of his argument. He just doesn't seem to have anything else to back it up with, so it's less a case of unwillingness to provide rational explanations and logical defences, and more a case of inability to do so.

There are rational reasons* to defend the historic view of marriage, they just don't coincide with Phatscotty's view of smaller government so it's harder for him to argue.

* I note the term "rational reasons" are religious in nature and thus may not be rational to most people.

[crispybits]

If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.

[thegreekdog]

If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.

I don't disagree with that and it's an interesting take.

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

[crispybits]

Given that (again talking in the USA here) a church can refuse to marry someone for a whole variety of reasons (spouse of different religion/denomination, previous divorces, etc) I think that churches in the US are safe from being forced (again, separation of church and state, works both ways)

[Bones2484]

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?

I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.

edit: Looks like I was fastposted by Crispy as I was writing my response.

[Phatscotty]

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?

I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.

edit: Looks like I was fastposted by Crispy as I was writing my response.

Time will tell.....

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.. You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.

Obama is smart like the devil, and fundamental transformation is in process. Same sex marriage, whatever your position on it, is being used, and once they get it, it will be abused.

[AndyDufresne]

Time will tell.....

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted. You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.

Agreed. I see it playing out like this.

Those homosexuals get marriage equality recognition. Cut to a gay pride parade goosestepping through the streets of any given metropolis, while Christian crosses line the pavement, so they are effectively stomping all over religion. Cut to scenes of horror (also known as Home Alone scenes) with people bringing their hands up to either side of their face. Cut to a completely different gay pride parade goosestepping through streets of another metropolis, this time stomping all over newspapers and manifestos that line the pavement. Cut to more scenes of horror/home alone. Cut to a ticking clock which ticks, ticks, ticks, and then abruptly stops. Cut to a view of Earth from space, and a massive nuclear explosion. Cut to aliens solemnly shaking their head, speaking alienese that in subtitles read: "If only. If only..."


--Andy

[Woodruff]

If the defence for the historic view of marriage is purely religious (and I think some would disagree with you), then the fact that there are recognised religions that are happy to conduct gay marriage ceremonies would mean that in the USA at least, the government should be powerless to prevent that. Separation of church and state and all that.

I don't disagree with that and it's an interesting take.

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

Me too.

[Woodruff]

If a law were being considered where the federal government would require churches, mosques, synangogues, and the like to perform same sex marriages, I would be fully against such a law (under First Amendment grounds).

I've been curious of comments like this, since I've heard it multiple times for years out here in California. Is forcing religions to perform same sex marriages actually on the table, or is it one of the talking points of those against in order to drum up support for an issue that isn't there in the first place?

It isn't really on the table, no. It's "one of those fears".

I ask because it doesn't make sense to me why changing the definition of marriage would actually cause this to happen. I am not a religious person and, to my knowledge, a mosque, synagogue, etc would not be required to have performed my wedding ceremony if I had asked. I can't imagine what would happen if I walked up to a Scientology or Mormon institution and told them they were required to marry me simply because I am heterosexual.

Correct. The pastor who married my wife and I required that we attend a certain number of family counseling sessions before he would agree to marry us. If we weren't willing to do that, he'd have walked away.

(FWIW, that was a wonderful thing he did for us, really.)

[Woodruff]

My prediction: wherever same sex marriage is recognized, free religion and free speech will be restricted.

What basis is there for that prediction?

You can see how this is already happening in places that recognize same sex marriage.

You mean in places that don't recognize separation of church and state, or possibly places that don't recognize free religion/free speech? Or in some other places?