Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down

[Tani Coyote]

When, in our nations history, was it anything but as it is now? And how accurate is it to describe what you do as 'as its always been' when it factually hasnt?

I meant human history, which isn't as self-serving as a set of borders.

And also what Civver said; things can change quite a bit. Even within a country.

 

[useless]

Why the hell are you laughing Dommy? That was the same argument back then.

 

[SuperJay]

Then do you agree that Marrage is a human right that should not be denied?

Yes, absolutely. (Sorry, that bit about Christians inventing marriage was facetious. I'm not Christian.)

I suspect you're being sarcastic but no they didn't.

I was indeed. I apologize for the confusion. (This answers my question from another post... parody doesn't translate well in text, unfortunately.)

 

[JollyRoger]

There is no binding law that prevents you from calling yourself married. There is law that hands out special government benefits for a subset that call themselves married.

 

[dirtyparrot]

What if in 30 years people who are attracted to animals complain they have the "Right" to marry their sheep? What then?

Then let them state their case.

It wasn't meant as a real comparison, and the consent point is valid, but still, think about it. Does marriage have a definition, or is it just what society says? If the latter, is it inconceivable that "People" will be taken out of the definition?

The meaning of words are constantly change. Look no further than the word "gay". What it meant 50yrs ago isn't the same as now. Should happy people be demanding to have their word back? The term "citizen" has a far different meaning in Antiquity than it does today. The definition of the word marriage can change just like any other word. I quite honestly don't understand this huge hubbub on semantics.

 

[MobBoss]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws

That doesnt affect that marriage has always been overwhelmingly seen in this nation as '1 man + 1 woman'. Nice try tho.

 

[GenMarshall]

The meaning of words are constantly change. Look no further than the word "gay". What it meant 50yrs ago isn't the same as now.

Go way WAY back further. If this was 1910. The word "gay" would have a whole different meaning back then meaning "happy".

 

[JollyRoger]

That doesnt affect that marriage has always been overwhelmingly seen in this nation as '1 man + 1 woman'. Nice try tho.

Actually, it has meant an option to have state-sanctioned relations with a series of people of the other gender. Describing it as 1 man and 1 woman is misleadingly narrow.

 

[civver_764]

That doesnt affect that marriage has always been overwhelmingly seen in this nation as '1 man + 1 woman'. Nice try tho.

You're not even making a point. It does affect that marriage used to overwhelmingly be seen as people in the same race. Would you have made your same "tradition" arguments back in the 60's against legislation preventing these laws?

 

[GenMarshall]

That doesnt affect that marriage has always been overwhelmingly seen in this nation as '1 man + 1 woman'. Nice try tho.

Yet that same law states that a Caucasian marrying an African American is verboten!

 

[MobBoss]

You're not even making a point. It does affect that marriage used to overwhelmingly be seen as people in the same race. Would you have made your same "tradition" arguments back in the 60's against legislation preventing these laws?

Unless your willing to pursue homosexuality = race argument, then the example is indeed moot. Good luck with that.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

@Cutlass- Your video is ridiculous because:

A: Yes, incest was originally legitimate. God banned it at Moses' time because of Genetic decay, and because the family structure was not intact until then.

B: God did not endorse everything that happened in Scripture.

So more proof that you believe in evolution there then, and you just argue against it to be annoying. Thanks Dommy!

 

[JollyRoger]

Unless your willing to pursue homosexuality = race argument, then the example is indeed moot. Good luck with that.

I think the argument is forbidden = forbidden.

 

[civver_764]

Unless your willing to pursue homosexuality = race argument, then the example is indeed moot. Good luck with that.

1) I am willing to pursue that argument because I believe in logic but that's not what I was referring to.
2) My point was that the traditional definition has changed before and you've got a double standard on your hands.

 

[MobBoss]

1) I am willing to pursue that argument because I believe in logic but that's not what I was referring to.
2) My point was that the traditional definition has changed before and you've got a double standard on your hands.

I dont really see the offer given as changing the definition of marriage. It was still 1 man + 1 woman regardless. You might have more of a point in bringing up polygamy, but that was struck down as well.

 

[JollyRoger]

got a double standard on your hands.

If standards a good, might as well double them.

 

[Tani Coyote]

1) I am willing to pursue that argument because I believe in logic but that's not what I was referring to.
2) My point was that the traditional definition has changed before and you've got a double standard on your hands.

Never mind that while homosexuality and race are different(for one, you can't tell a homosexual by appearance alone, whereas with race you generally can), they are similar in being genetic.

Or, even if homosexuality isn't genetic and is a choice/upbringing result, it's still a key part of one's identity and should be as respected as religious belief(or lack thereof).

Either way, it's a minority being discriminated against. One group has had the fortune of escaping discrimination in the marriage code. One hasn't.

I dont really see the offer given as changing the definition of marriage.

Maybe not the definition, but it did change who could enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.

Which is all I really care about personally. People can keep their precious term. In fact, me and my mate would most certainly RL troll by calling our union a marriage, which isn't really important anyway since marriage would just be a ceremonial term and not carry any legal standing.

It was still 1 man + 1 woman regardless. You might have more of a point in bringing up polygamy, but that was struck down as well.

If we go beyond the United States and look at all of human history, then we certainly get a more varied view on everything. Which is something to consider unless we're subscribing to exceptionalism.

 

[civver_764]

I dont really see the offer given as changing the definition of marriage. It was still 1 man + 1 woman regardless. You might have more of a point in bringing up polygamy, but that was struck down as well.

I don't really see this offer as changing the definition of marriage. It's still 1 person + 1 person regardless.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Oh boy..

Marriage is a right because it comes with other rights(and actually the UN calls marriage a right in their universal declaration of human rights, which we signed). We've already learned from the past(*cough*segregation*cough*) that enforcing "separate but equal" policies is a bad idea.

I don't find it to be the same thing.

And besides, I don't give a crap about the UN. If you want to prove something is a right, give me logical reason why it is.

Really, that insults you? Ok then.

I overreacted, but I still find it to be demeaning to the institution of marriage.

My point, the state should ALLOW them to have their marriage relationship, but they should not ENDORSE it by agreeing with them that its marriage. The best solution to the debate is to take the word out of the lawbook.

Sure but in the mean time we have to make sure people are being treated equally.

Agreed, but define the word equal. I think changing wording to suit a certain group of people is putting them above everyone else.

It IS a human right to marry whomever you want with no legal bounderies telling you that you cannot based on numerous reasons.

Sure, but its not a legal right for the state to call it marriage. Its a right for me to allow them to call it marriage. But its not a right for the state to agree with them.

You seem rather joyful to see any bans on gay marriages to stay. To me you seem to have a strong opinions on gay marrages

I support the gay marriage ban, but I really don't care all that much, especially about California. I'm more laughing at them for not understanding the English language than anything.

Let me put it this way, I was a LOT MORE upset about UHC then I was about Prop 8 being overturned. And I'd gladly allow gay marriage in every state to get abortion overturned in one state.

Not on this planet. The magma and the core are HOT!!!

Who says hell is on Earth at all?

Ok, lets ban Christians from marrying.

On what grounds?

Just make marriage an informal institution with no legal standing. Churches can decide who to marry, and even if gays couldn't find anybody to marry them they could still call themselves married.

I'd agree to that.

Gays will enjoy equal legal rights with heterosexuals - division of property, adoption rights, tax benefits, etc. Call it a civil union, call it whatever, but everyone will have it. It won't be "separate but equal." Each couple will have equal legal standing, and marriage can remain as it has always been - something decided by individuals rather than any binding law.

I agree with them having all of those rights you mentioned except for adoption rights for reasons I've stated. And besides, adoption isn't a "Right" its something that's given to you when the parent, orphanage, judge, or whoever says you are qualified to adopt. Personally, I think that gays should be able to adopt in certain circumstances, but not as a general rule. But everything else yes.

This means the guy down the street can say he's married to his pig, but that won't have any legal standing apart from an investigation to ensure there's no abuse going on.

Agreed. He can say he's married to his pig. He cannot, however, consummate that marriage.

When, in our nations history, was it anything but as it is now? And how accurate is it to describe what you do as 'as its always been' when it factually hasnt?

Well, I don't know much about ancient history, but I'm sure that probably was how it was long ago in the past. But that's irrelevant.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Well, I don't know much about ancient history, but I'm sure that probably was how it was long ago in the past. But that's irrelevant.

How it was in ancient times=irrelevant

What an ancient book says=relevant

?