Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KaelGotDwarves]

To me, it is not so much cynical as it is an illogical and biased argument. Since straight people can "fake" marriage for the tax breaks just as easily, it follows we should remove us straight peoples' right get married because we might fake marriage for tax benefits. QED.

You don't take away the rights from an entire group of people just because some may abuse it financially.

[RedKing]

You don't take away the rights from an entire group of people just because some may abuse it financially.

You would think so, but that's essentially the same argument used to attack welfare beneficiaries, Medicare beneficiaries, voting rights (under the guise of preventing "voter fraud"), etc.

[Andir]

You've never been around kids... or adults for that matter.  "Why does he get that and I don't?"  As soon as you start giving special rights to a specific group, other groups start wanting that too.  (ie: gay marriage...  If there was no benefit to marriage, do you think we'd even be discussing this?)

As soon as you start giving special rights to a specific group, other groups start wanting that too.  (ie: gay marriage

I wasn't aware marriage was a "special right".

Your use of the word "right" though is telling, since marriage appears to be a fundamental societal contract. So tell me, if we grant marriage to all consenting, loving adults - that specific group of "gays" - then what other group are we as a society forced to give marriage rights to?

Single adults.

There should be no beneficial reason to be married.  It should only be a personal choice between consenting adults and have no bearing or privileges associated with it.  (edit: ... in relation to the Federal Government, or any government for that matter.)

You will notice that I did not capitalize "right."  I'm not sure why you are attempting to attack my position based on semantic arguments unless you know your argument is baseless, flawed, or you feel there's no other recourse but ad hominem attacks.

[Lord Shonus]

So a man's parents instead of his wife should get all his money if he dies in an accident without a will? Someone should have no say in the health care of the person they've lived with for thirty years because they're not next of kin because you've abolished the right of marriage? Get off your goddamn high horse and realize how different things look outside your ivory tower.

[RedKing]

You've never been around kids... or adults for that matter.  "Why does he get that and I don't?"  As soon as you start giving special rights to a specific group, other groups start wanting that too.  (ie: gay marriage...  If there was no benefit to marriage, do you think we'd even be discussing this?)

As soon as you start giving special rights to a specific group, other groups start wanting that too.  (ie: gay marriage

I wasn't aware marriage was a "special right".

Your use of the word "right" though is telling, since marriage appears to be a fundamental societal contract. So tell me, if we grant marriage to all consenting, loving adults - that specific group of "gays" - then what other group are we as a society forced to give marriage rights to?

Single adults.

There should be no beneficial reason to be married.  It should only be a personal choice between consenting adults and have no bearing or privileges associated with it.  (edit: ... in relation to the Federal Government, or any government for that matter.)

You will notice that I did not capitalize "right."  I'm not sure why you are attempting to attack my position based on semantic arguments unless you know your argument is baseless, flawed, or you feel there's no other recourse but ad hominem attacks.

The same logic is used to attack family leave benefits, on the basis that it's unfair to people without children to allow people with children to take time off to take care of them when they're sick. And it's just as misguided.

[Andir]

So a man's parents instead of his wife should get all his money if he dies in an accident without a will? Someone should have no say in the health care of the person they've lived with for thirty years because they're not next of kin because you've abolished the right of marriage? Get off your goddamn high horse and realize how different things look outside your ivory tower.

Ah, the attacks continue.

If you don't have a will, and you don't specify where your money should go... yes.  However, the will process itself is a shared benefit that we can all participate in (ie: I can designate all my wealth go to a friend.)

You can grant someone power of attorney and should be able to specify someone as a trusted associate when matters like that come up.  It should not require marriage and anyone should be able to specify anyone else as a benefactor or final decision maker.

All the of the Rights and benefits of marriage can be extended to anyone.  I don't see why marriage is required for anything on the list.  Although, some of them should be abolished or required separately for same household residents.

The same logic is used to attack family leave benefits, on the basis that it's unfair to people without children to allow people with children to take time off to take care of them when they're sick. And it's just as misguided.

I've already covered that I accept children to be a necessity to the continuation of species/society so that would be an acceptable condition.  Although, you should be able to file one other person as a caretaker to the child in the case of accident.  (This is already possible with guardianship.)

[KaelGotDwarves]

@Andir: I agree that marriage should be a personal choice between consenting adults and that outside forces should have no effect. However, that would require either changing the laws regarding marriage as a social and law-binding contract and having a separate one or granting the same rights to all consenting adults regardless of sexual preference.

You will notice that I did not capitalize "right."  I'm not sure why you are attempting to attack my position based on semantic arguments unless you know your argument is baseless, flawed, or you feel there's no other recourse but ad hominem attacks.

I did not "attack" your position on semantics, I am questioning your argument because it doesn't make sense except for personal bias. You did not even attempt to address my question, so let me ask it clearly again.

Your use of the word "right" though is telling, since marriage appears to be a fundamental societal contract. So tell me, if we grant marriage to all consenting, loving adults - that specific group of "gays" - then what other group are we as a society forced to give marriage rights to?

EDIT: How are any of these attacks? You're taking anyone's questioning of your logic as an "attack".

[Andir]

I did not "attack" your position on semantics, I am questioning your argument because it doesn't make sense except for personal bias. You did not even attempt to address my question, so let me ask it clearly again.

Your use of the word "right" though is telling, since marriage appears to be a fundamental societal contract. So tell me, if we grant marriage to all consenting, loving adults - that specific group of "gays" - then what other group are we as a society forced to give marriage rights to?

EDIT: How are any of these attacks? You're taking anyone's questioning of your logic as an "attack".

As I posted a list of "Rights and benefits" to marriage above, they are considered "rights" by more than just myself.  I am referring to the granted benefits of marriage by the government body, not the right to get married.  I don't care who gets married.  Since I'm not a religious person, marriage means nothing to me except an enumerated list of benefits from the government and society.

I think you clung onto the use of "special rights" to mean the "right to marry" and you insisted that I was totally off base and my argument was moot/pointless/baseless because of it instead of asking for clarification.  That was what I considered an ad hominem attack (Attacking an opponent's motives rather than the policy or position they maintain.)

[KaelGotDwarves]

That's what I wanted to know, but still doesn't answer the question. As we are varying on the libertarian side I can not comprehend that either of us would stand for others not being able to have basic rights, however I am aware I lean libertarian left and you libertarian right.

So if the government and societal benefits should be removed from marriage, what is your reasoning behind keeping those benefits away from those who happen to be homosexual? I'm not attacking, I'm genuinely curious because I've never heard an argument that does not revolve around "I don't like homosexuality".

[Andir]

what is your reasoning behind keeping those benefits away from those who happen to be homosexual?

I never said that.  In fact, I said the opposite.  Those rights should be given to anyone that wants them.  (with proper filing of course... )

[KaelGotDwarves]

Well, then I apologise for misunderstanding. My mistake.

[Andir]

Well, then I apologise for misunderstanding. My mistake.

It's alright, I was throughly confused why I was being questioned so intently.  It just feels like people are being very abrasive to me recently ... I'm not sure if it's lack of reading my history (or opposite), something I'm doing with my writing, or simple misunderstanding.

[Aqizzar]

I think it started off when you admitted some confusion about how marriage rights are actually defined, but it was more the refusal to see any legitimate comparison between the "Separate But Equal" coin of history and giving straight and gay marriages two different legal definitions.  It's all out the window at this point anyway.

So, presidential race.  The Wall Street Journal is now predicting that His Imperial Texan Majesty Rick Perry will announce a race for the Republican nomination, which would explain why he's left over a thousand voted bills sitting on his desk awaiting signature, while he runs around hosting his own National Prayer Days and stuff.  To me, he is the essence of the Republican alliance formed some thirty years hence - pro-religion, pro-corporations, and pro-hating the Federal government.  Every Republican tries to be all things to all bases, but most of them fall flat in at least one area.  Perry wears each one comfortably; government exists to support business to the extent that it has a reason to exist at all, only those who despise government power can be trusted with its management, and God gave us America and will surely take it away if we do not enshrine His word.

As a Texan, I'd love to see him win the nomination, so he can twist in the wind for a real debate, and explain why Americans should vote for a guy who threatened to take his state and go home when he didn't like some proposed legislation.

[Chaoswizkid]

Ugh. I'm definitely feeling the dislike of the presidential field right now.

Anyone else super pissed at Bachmann and some of the other candidates that were on CNN's Republican Debate yada-yada a while back? I usually gravitate slightly towards Republicans, for no really big reason, but I have to say that if Bachmann wins the nomination, I may just have to vote against her, whoever that someone else is.
The thing that set me off was this:
Everyone gets roughly thirty seconds to introduce themselves. Everyone does this with obvious "Pick me! I'm awesomer!" tidbits slipped in, a couple people (or maybe just Romney) threw in some Obama slander, which is to be expected, etc. Bachmann does this as well. Everything's standard procedure.
CNN clearly explains that time is trying to be conserved as much as possible in order to get as many questions from people as possible. If you don't answer the question asked or you go drastically over the time, it's pretty much clear you aren't respecting the constituents, your opponents, CNN, or anyone else. CNN didn't say that part, but I will, because it's an oath of honor that you try as much as possible to follow the spirit of the debate and not your personal agenda.
So some questions get asked, and when a new question is asked, and Bachmann is chosen to field it, she proclaims "Hey, I'll get to the question in a second, but first, John (or w/e the name of the CNN debate referee was named), I just want you to be the very first person to know that I'm officially in the running! Woooo!!!!!!!!!!!"
Are you freaking kidding me? You had thirty seconds all to yourself for EXACTLY THAT KIND OF STATEMENT. You instead choose to dishonor the oath you took by standing on that stage, display a completely obvious political move to steal the spotlight, and show a disgusting disregard to the constituent who asked you a question. You even prompted CNN to take a couple minutes and explain that you hadn't been running yet, which had been on the news for like the past two weeks prior, perhaps even longer. It's that kind of BS that shows someone's character, and I won't support them because of it.

While I gravitate towards the Republican party, I just can't bring myself to really support any of them because of some of the things they believe. In a culturally explosive melting pot that is America, most of the Republicans still only accept the one-way interpretation of separation of Church and State, that the State shouldn't mess with the Church. By not preventing the Church from affecting matters of the State, you get huge swaths of bigotry and repression, as well as stamping one religion over everything when there are so many different ones that exist in America and around the globe. I believe that when a country is made "Of the People, By the People, For the People", it shouldn't be of some, by some, and then pretend under a thin veil that it's for everyone.

I also can't stand their constantly dis-proven stance on things like homosexuality, 'gay marriage', adoption rights involved, etc. I find it increasingly disgusting that in a self-proclaimed "Land of the Free", Freedom of Sexuality is something that is not widely endorsed, especially not from (most of, if not all) the Republicans.

As for the actual issue of 'gay marriage', why hasn't anyone just remove every base of ground that proponents against it argue by taking the term 'marriage' and applying it specifically to religious weddings? Anything dealing with the state, such as recognition, benefits, etc., should be redefined 'civil union' or whatever else. Marriage can still be between a man and a woman, as dictated by whatever religion someone follows. I don't believe it will cause some of the 'Separate But Equal' problems I've read here, because it becomes a difference between beliefs (which it has already been so it's actually keeping a status quo that people seem to be fine with). The State only recognizes 'civil unions', so you can't redefine the law for some but not others without a big to-do. IMO, it seems like a short, sweet, and simple solution to a problem that people just seem to have to have with one another.

If anyone has actually thought of this and is in the running, let me know.

[Andir]

I think it started off when you admitted some confusion about how marriage rights are actually defined, but it was more the refusal to see any legitimate comparison between the "Separate But Equal" coin of history and giving straight and gay marriages two different legal definitions.

It's not refusal.  There is no legitimate comparison.  One is race relations and the other is another "branch" of Civil Rights.  One had what amounted to a Federal decree that institutions must provide equal service if separated (even though they ignored it) and the other has no Federal acknowledgement at all.

if Bachmann wins the nomination, I may just have to vote against her, whoever that someone else is.

Who[m]ever they are.  It's not just two people running... can't think of a time when it ever has been just two.