How to change a conservative's mind?

[.Shane.]

Nowhere is gay marriage actually prohibited. That is, there are absolutely no laws anywhere that prevent homosexual same-gender couples from having a wedding, be it in a church, their backyard, or anywhere, and considering themselves a married couple. Marriage is primarily a social institution, and there are no laws prohibiting a social gay marriage. The problem is that although it is not prohibited, such a marriage receives none of the official recognition from the government and few of the benefits of a different-gender marriage.

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong, at least in the US. Many states have laws specifically stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just as they had laws limiting racial marriages, etc....

Sure, this doesn't prevent them have "having a wedding", it just means they have no legal standing, whatsoever. Its the legal equivalent of 2 little kids playing marriage at school. You can offer your arguments about social blah blah blah, but in a de facto sense, that's meaningless. Seriously, you can say the same thing about marrying your sister.

Now, that doesn't mean that from a Constitutional standpoint these laws can't be found to be invalid.

All that said, I have no problem what-so-ever w/ gay marriage. I see no harm in it and its inevitable, be it in 1 year or 30.

 

[JohnRM]

So when a man goes to marry his girlfriend, there will be a background check to make sure there were never any homosexual relationships in their past...?
The 'gay' could even openly continue his homosexual activity after the wedding and I don't think the government is going to show up to block him from marriage.

If you want to be a douche bag and play dumb, then so be it. Don't waste my time with it.
Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I'm sorry, but that's just plain wrong, at least in the US. Many states have laws specifically stating that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just as they had laws limiting racial marriages, etc....

Sure, this doesn't prevent them have "having a wedding", it just means they have no legal standing, whatsoever. Its the legal equivalent of 2 little kids playing marriage at school. You can offer your arguments about social blah blah blah, but in a de facto sense, that's meaningless. Seriously, you can say the same thing about marrying your sister.

Now, that doesn't mean that from a Constitutional standpoint these laws can't be found to be invalid.

All that said, I have no problem what-so-ever w/ gay marriage. I see no harm in it and its inevitable, be it in 1 year or 30.

Again, I disagree. There is a huge difference between two children pretending to be married and two knowledgeable adults saying that they are married, having an actual wedding, and living as a married couple. The laws of the state are not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a marriage, regardless of what laws they pass.

At any rate, I don't see how "definition" laws actually affect anyone's life. But like I said. gay marriage is legal, and exists everywhere; the real question is whether the government will treat it the same as opposite-sex marriage.

But, then, you are free to disagree.

 

[Inqvisitor]

If you want to be a douche bag and play dumb, then so be it. Don't waste my time with it.

No, you are playing dumb, because you know there is nothing forbidding 'gays' to get married just as 'straight' people do, which is equal protection under the law.

The only problem is when 'gays' demand unique extra protection in allowing themselves to get married to someone of the same sex, which 'straight' people are not allowed to do either.

 

[.Shane.]

Again, I disagree. There is a huge difference between two children pretending to be married and two knowledgeable adults saying that they are married, having an actual wedding, and living as a married couple. The laws of the state are not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a marriage, regardless of what laws they pass.

I understand what you're saying and, to an extent, I agree. But, I don't think this is an acceptable "alternative" (not saying that this is what you're advocating). Meaning, that sure, 2 guys invite their friends over and declare their intentions and commitment. But, since its legally meaningless their commitment has much less value.

Just for clarification, you do, at the least, agree that there are states that have defined marriage per my last post? If you do believe its "legal", on what basis do you make this claim? How do you reconcile that to the various state laws that exist?

The point your driving at is the social acceptance or value of marriage?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I understand what you're saying and, to an extent, I agree. But, I don't think this is an acceptable "alternative" (not saying that this is what you're advocating). Meaning, that sure, 2 guys have invite their friends over and declare their intentions and commitment. But, since its legally meaningless their commitment has much less value.

Just for clarification, you do, at the least, agree that there are states that have defined marriage per my last post? The point your driving at is the social acceptance or value of marriage?

Essentially, yes. I am saying that the true meaning of marriage is not determined by legislators but by society. And the fact that not everyone considers gay marriage to be valid doesn't mean I am wrong - for some Catholics, not being married by a priest in a church makes a marriage invalid, but most people will accept it. The same with gay marriage. Would you agree, if laws were not part of it, that two women having a "commitment ceremony", calling each other their wife, and acting as a married couple were actually married?

I know that there are states that passed laws saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But it is not for them to decide the value of a social institution, any more than they can decide what constitutes boyfriend/girlfriend status.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Trick question! You can't.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Trick question! You can't.

My mind has been changed on things through the arguments of other people, and I'm a conservative. If you mean, "how can I force someone to not be conservative", may I suggest a lobotomy?

Edit: I meant for them, although I suppose for you would also work.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

I was just kidding.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I was just kidding.

Yeah, I know. So was I, by the way.

My natural sarcasm doesn't show up on the internet very well, I have noticed.

 

[punkbass2000]

Again, I disagree. There is a huge difference between two children pretending to be married and two knowledgeable adults saying that they are married, having an actual wedding, and living as a married couple. The laws of the state are not the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a marriage, regardless of what laws they pass.

At any rate, I don't see how "definition" laws actually affect anyone's life. But like I said. gay marriage is legal, and exists everywhere; the real question is whether the government will treat it the same as opposite-sex marriage.

But, then, you are free to disagree.

But there are rather obvious consequences to the marriage not being legally valid. For example, a gay "married" couple in that context does not have legal kin status and thus if one is injured the other is not allowed to visit as a legal spouse would be able. If one is suddenly killed, the other does not automatically inherit their assets as a legal spouse would. I'm sure there are other drawbacks. I imagine they would pay more taxes and such as well. They can't adopt children together. The list goes on.

 

[.Shane.]

Essentially, yes. I am saying that the true meaning of marriage is not determined by legislators but by society. And the fact that not everyone considers gay marriage to be valid doesn't mean I am wrong - for some Catholics, not being married by a priest in a church makes a marriage invalid, but most people will accept it. The same with gay marriage. Would you agree, if laws were not part of it, that two women having a "commitment ceremony", calling each other their wife, and acting as a married couple were actually married?

I know that there are states that passed laws saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But it is not for them to decide the value of a social institution, any more than they can decide what constitutes boyfriend/girlfriend status.

While I appreciate the... what's the word... aesthetic (Sorry, can't think of a better one right now) of your argument its not, IMO, pragmatic and since its not legal, its essentially irrelevant.

I don't mean that as harshly as it sounds. But, by your argument, ANYTHING is just a matter of how you or I feel about it. And, even it that were true, it still would carry no legal weight. What gays want is not some kind of social warm fuzzy about their vows, but actual legal standing. So, that if one dies the other has property rights. So that if one is on their deathbed, their spouse is legally empowered to make decisions. So that they enjoy the same economic benefits that hetero couples have, etc....

So, while I agree that there's a social aspect to this, in the end, what matters most is the legal standing. Like it or not, the law is what settles things, in the end.

Conversely, conservatives shouldn't fear a legal right of marriage. Churches will not be required to marry gay people. They won't lose ANY rights. Your argument about feelings works in this sense as well. Just because Ace and Gary have a legal marriage doesn't mean you have to approve of it in your mind.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But there are rather obvious consequences to the marriage not being legally valid. For example, a gay "married" couple in that context does not have legal kin status and thus if one is injured the other is not allowed to visit as a legal spouse would be able. If one is suddenly killed, the other does not automatically inherit their assets as a legal spouse would. I'm sure there are other drawbacks. I imagine they would pay more taxes and such as well. They can't adopt children together. The list goes on.

That doesn't change the fact that they are married. If the US government abolished all specific benefits to straight married couples, that doesn't mean that straight marriage no longer exists. The issue is that the government gives certain benefits to one type of relationship and not another, not that it denies any individual any specific rights. That is why people are incorrect in saying they want to legalize gay marriage. What they actually want to do is give official recognition to it.

Like I said, I am not saying that recognizing that gay marriage is the end of the debate. Just that the debate is not about the legality of same-sex marriage and nothing else. Marriage can be defined by society, but the benefits of marriage have to come from the government (mostly; some companies give benefits to same-sex partners).

So much for not going off course . . .

 

[kingjoshi]

@eran, it looks you're arguing "sure it doesn't have bills, or wings and only a stout neck, but it's still a duck!"

 

[kingjoshi]

1. Bush's policies have lead to an increase in terrorism.

Maybe. Munich showed that such tactics don't have long term success. But this case is far from proved as a fact.

2. Local, state, and federal governments failed miserably during the Katrina disaster.

Agree.

3. Iraq is in worse shape now than before the war.

Better in some ways and worse in others. The capture of Saddam was a glorius day. How do you compare the value of that versus other changes? Currently, there is relative peace in 10 of the 14 zones in Iraq. Government services aren't back to levels they should be, but that's shouldn't be the sole comparison. It's easier for those that have freedom to minimize the value they have from it.

4. Bush's appointee, Michael Brown, is incompetent, and has no qualifications to be head of FEMA.

From videos out there, it seemed Brown did a reasonable job. It seems the problems were much beyond him. I agree he lacked credentials to serve, but if you're going to criticize him on Katrina, you have to view it in the context.

5. The federal spending during the Bush administration is the highest of all time, in any US presidency.

Sadly too true.

 

[punkbass2000]

That doesn't change the fact that they are married. If the US government abolished all specific benefits to straight married couples, that doesn't mean that straight marriage no longer exists. The issue is that the government gives certain benefits to one type of relationship and not another, not that it denies any individual any specific rights. That is why people are incorrect in saying they want to legalize gay marriage. What they actually want to do is give official recognition to it.

Like I said, I am not saying that recognizing that gay marriage is the end of the debate. Just that the debate is not about the legality of same-sex marriage and nothing else. Marriage can be defined by society, but the benefits of marriage have to come from the government (mostly; some companies give benefits to same-sex partners).

So much for not going off course . . .

And theft is perfectly legal too. There are just benefits to not committing the crime, such as not going to jail.

 

[Dreadnought]

Conservatives want you to spend your money, not give it to government. Liberals say to give the money to the government to get more things is return.

Second one sounds A LOT like communism/socialism.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And theft is perfectly legal too. There are just benefits to not committing the crime, such as not going to jail.

It is? Since when?

Like I said, there is nothing on earth stopping gay people from marrying each other. If you all want to insist that it is up to the government to define marriage, then I guess we will never agree. But like I said, I don't see how it is their right to do so. And I didn't say that the situations are equal; essentially, the government is defining one type of marriage to be different from another.

 

[garric]

No liberal on this forum has acted mature enough (You making this post is living and breathing proof) to convince me of anything. Your whole argument is flawed, you say that people who like Bush are essentially morons, and expect us to change your mind to agree with your beliefs?

I am sorry if having a mind of my own and not every little article, celebrities, or a news story, have to say.

 

[Red Stranger]

Tell me, of these facts, which ones have a liberal spin:
1. Bush's policies have lead to an increase in terrorism.
2. Local, state, and federal governments failed miserably during the Katrina disaster.
3. Iraq is in worse shape now than before the war.
4. Bush's appointee, Michael Brown, is incompetent, and has no qualifications to be head of FEMA.
5. The federal spending during the Bush administration is the highest of all time, in any US presidency.

All of the above are true, so which ones can safely be disregarded because they're just liberal spin?

So your real question is "How Do You Force A Conservative To Believe in the Liberal Agenda?"

Seriiously, the things you listed are not facts?
1. Bush's policies have lead to the discovery of many terrorist cells, and they're fighting to defend their training camp.
2. I have criticized the handling of Katrina from the start. Michael Brown was not prepared to handle the situation and shouldn't have been put in charged. But the effort to rebuild Katrina had been great.
3. Iraq is in the best shape it has every experienced. Why are you so quick to forget the successful elections and the development of a democratic government.
4. I'd prefer Michael Brown over Michael Moore anyday. Even though Michael Brown was a mistake, it's an exception rather than the rule. Most of Bush's appointees were well qualified for their jobs.
5. Yes there is a lot of spending, but don't forget we're fighting this little thing called the global war on terror. If you're not willing to spend the money to defend America, what would you spend it on?