Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

This is getting ridiculous. I ignored Waychels comments about polygamy because they were a diversion by Waychel from the argument at hand. You took the post out of context. Also if I didn't address polygamy in that post why are you asking me to do so now? Why do I have to address polygamy? This is thread is about gay marriage. What screw ball trick are you up to now?

I'm just simply asking you if "equal treatment" applies to everyone equally - or do you seek to exclude some forms of marriage with the definition you wrote.

The current definition is fairly specific. One man, and one woman, excluding incest. Because the current definition of legal marriage addresses the issue of incest AND polygamy, I am simply asking your new definition to meet the same standard. What is so "tricky" about that?

[Dirty Name]

At this time polygamy has eqaul treatment. No one can get recognition of a polygamous marriage from the government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be said of homosexual marriage. LOL. I suggest you quit now before you do even more damage to your cause.

I would like to forever remember post #1080 as the post where Starboy tripped over his own argument. And just to make sure it can never be altered, I shall encase it here, in a sacred shrine called:

:eek: Starboy's Folly :eek:

Today, 01:41 pm Report Bad Post #1080 Starboy Starboy is online now Reality Adventurer Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,739 Quote by: Dirty Name Starboy, what I am doing is taking your mantra of "equal treatment" and asking you in an intellectually honest way if your definition of equal treatment includes polygamy and incest. So does it or not? This really isn't that hard of a question to answer, unless you know where I'm going with it and don't want to trap yourself. At this time polygamy has eqaul treatment. No one can get recognition of a polygamous marriage from the government. I do not care to discuss polygamy. That is a different topic. Stop derailing this thread. If you want to discuss polygamy then start another thread. Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT can be said of homosexual marriage. LOL. I suggest you quit now before you do even more damage to your cause.

If you say so. The government recognizes monagamous marriages not heterosexual marriages. That is what the constitutional amendment is all about.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

If you say so. The government recognizes monagamous marriages not heterosexual marriages. That is what the constitutional amendment is all about.

Not in Ohio. Here, we define it as "one man, one woman." There are at least 10 other states just in the past year who have passed similar laws.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name Not in Ohio. Here, we define it as "one man, one woman." There are at least 10 other states just in the past year who have passed similar laws.

That is what they are doing. So what. It doesn't make it right.

Starboy

[Dirty Name]

That is what they are doing. So what. It doesn't make it right.

It doesn't change the fact that you stated that polygamy already receives equal treatment under the law because no one can marry more than one partner.

At the same time, I argue that homosexuality also recieves "equal treatment" because no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex.

So you basically have three options as I see them:

1) You reverse yourself and say that your definition of equality for polygamists and incestuous couples was wrong (and offer a new definition which treats them equally under the law).

2) You admit that your goal isn't really "equal treatment" for all, but unequal treatment granting homosexuals the special right to marry while denying that same right to polygamists and incestuous couples.

3) You ignore this argument altogether while hoping to convince people that polygamy and incest can somehow be seperated from the homosexuality argument when writing a new definition of marriage, despite the fact that the current definition of marriage directly addresses ALL forms of marriage.

Personally, I agree with your original statement - that polygamy, incest (and by association, homosexuality) already receive equal treatent under the law.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Dirty Name It doesn't change the fact that you stated the polygamy already receives equal treatment under the law because no one can marry more than one partner. At the same time, I argue that homosexuality also recieves "equal treatment" because no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. So you basically have three options as I see them: 1) You admit that your definition of equality for polygamists and incestuous couples was wrong (and offer a new definition which treats them equally under the law).

What definition are you talking about? I am not talking about polygamy. I am talking about monogamy. Why do you keep doing this?

2) You admit that your goal isn't really "equal treatment" for all, but unequal treatment granting homosexuals the special right to marry while denying that same right to polygamists and incestuous couples.

Get this strait. Polygamy and monagamy is a kind of marriage. Kinds of marriage are not people. Kinds of marriage do not get equal treatment under the law. Hetro and homo are kinds of people. Kinds of people under the constitution are entitiled to equal treatment under the law. So if heteros are allowed to marry then so are homos. But if the government does not allow polygamy then no one gets to have a polygamous marriage.

3) You ignore this argument altogether while hoping to convince people that polygamy and incest can somehow be seperated from the homosexuality argument when writing a new definition of marriage, despite the fact that the current definition of marriage directly addresses ALL forms of marriage.

Incest is a completely different issue. It has nothing to do with homos or heteros marrying. You can have an incestious relationship in any kind of sexuality and any kind of marriage. This is another red herring. I never brought it up because it has nothing to do with this issue.

If you want to think that not allowing hetero and homo polygamy and only allowing hetero monagamy is somehow equal treatment then fine. It does give me an insight into how your brain functions on simple comparisons.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Holy crap this thead is long. Is it some kind of record on this site?

Starboy - I do think it is valid to mix in plural marriage and incest with this discussion. The idea is the same - *if* government is going to legislate marriage - we need to adress issues of equality, outside of any religious or sociological rammifications.

My solution? Get the government out of marriage. When we have to have these debates, it always starts a slippery slope argument, which is the point that is being brought up with the incest thing.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Holy crap this thead is long. Is it some kind of record on this site? Starboy - I do think it is valid to mix in plural marriage and incest with this discussion. The idea is the same - *if* government is going to legislate marriage - we need to adress issues of equality, outside of any religious or sociological rammifications.

You would have a point if that is what gays wanted to do, have gay incestuous polygamous marriages. But as far as I know they are not asking for that. Only gay monogamous non-incestuous marriages.

My solution? Get the government out of marriage. When we have to have these debates, it always starts a slippery slope argument, which is the point that is being brought up with the incest thing.

The slippery slope arguments are due to sloppy thinking. Kinds of marriages are not protected under the constitution, kinds of people are. This is not primarily a discussion of whether different kinds of marriages should be allowed by the government but a discussion of the discrimination by the government of different kinds of people having a single kind of marriage, monogamy.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy You would have a point if that is what gays wanted to do, have gay incestuous polygamous marriages. But as far as I know they are not asking for that. Only gay monogamous non-incestuous marriages.

Why not? Marriage is such a slippery, culturally defined term, that looking at the next step is forced on us when we break a traditional definition. If you are going to allow straight marriage you have to allow gay marriage. If you break the traditional definition by doing that you have to allow plural marriage. If you allow that then why not marry your sister? I'm not being sarcastic. Seriously - if marriage is a legal issue, you have to allow all variations.

Kinds of marriages are not protected under the constitution, kinds of people are.

Exactly - so dosen't that show that government shouldn't be in the marrying business. Isn't formalized marriage a basically religious thing anyway? On that point alone the government should stop doing it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Why not? Marriage is such a slippery, culturally defined term, that looking at the next step is forced on us when we break a traditional definition. If you are going to allow straight marriage you have to allow gay marriage. If you break the traditional definition by doing that you have to allow plural marriage. If you allow that then why not marry your sister? I'm not being sarcastic. Seriously - if marriage is a legal issue, you have to allow all variations.

You act as if the history of marriage is not a long sequence of breaks with tradition. There were traditions that allowed you to murder your wife. Consider the possibility that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage, simply a marriage based on the customs of the time. Well the times they are a changing. Homos are not asking for government recognition of marriage because they are thinking about doing it. They are asking for such recognition because they are married in every other way and it is not equal treatment under the law for the government to recognize hetero marriages and not homo marriages.

Exactly - so dosen't that show that government shouldn't be in the marrying business. Isn't formalized marriage a basically religious thing anyway? On that point alone the government should stop doing it.

The funny thing about this debate is that those opposed to homosexual marriage seem to think that government is in the marriage business. Even though it is called a marriage certificate it is actually a family certificate. Families need legal recognition for a variety of reasons. Have a family some time and you will see.

Starboy

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name You admit that your goal isn't really "equal treatment" for all, but unequal treatment granting homosexuals the special right to marry....

Let's get this clear. It's not about special rights. And from your point of view--in which heterosexual couples can be given preference--I hardly see it as a valid argument.

By the way,

Quote by: Dirty Name Fidelity does not require marriage, nor does marriage limit promiscuity. Think about it...are you saying that gay men would be somehow less promiscuous if only we could legally allow them to be married? That the absence of a marriage license or certificate, or the lack of a handful of government benefits causes them to have multiple sexual partners? I think not.

Quote by: "Sociological Reason Not to Live Together" A Columbia University study cited in New Woman magazine found that "only 26% of women surveyed and a scant 19% of the men married the person with whom they were cohabiting." A more comprehensive National Survey of Families and Households, based on interviews with 13,000 people, concluded, "About 40% of cohabiting unions in the U.S. break up without the couple getting married." One of the reasons may be that those who cohabit drift from one partner to another in search of the 'right' person. The average cohabitant has several partners in a lifetime.... When it comes to staying faithful, married partners have higher rates of loyalty every time. One study, done over a five-year period, reported in Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles indicates 90% of married women were monogamous, compared to 60% of cohabiting women. Statistics were even more dramatic with male faithfulness: 90% of married men remained true to their brides, while only 43% of cohabiting men stayed true to their partner (Ciavola 1997).

I don't know that you were quite right on that count. See the full article here.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy You act as if the history of marriage is not a long sequence of breaks with tradition. There were traditions that allowed you to murder your wife. Consider the possibility that there is no such thing as a traditional marriage, simply a marriage based on the customs of the time. Well the times they are a changing. Homos are not asking for government recognition of marriage because they are thinking about doing it. They are asking for such recognition because they are married in every other way and it is not equal treatment under the law for the government to recognize hetero marriages and not homo marriages.

That's my entire point. Marriage is fluidly defined - because it is defined by cultural norms. In that sence it is ridiculous for the government to make laws statically defining it.

The funny thing about this debate is that those opposed to homosexual marriage seem to think that government is in the marriage business. Even though it is called a marriage certificate it is actually a family certificate. Families need legal recognition for a variety of reasons. Have a family some time and you will see.

Wait - I'm in support of gay marriage. Also plural and incestuous marriage.

Families need les and less legal recognition. With so many divorces and pre-marital pregnancies, parenthood is no longer defined by marital bonds. It is defined by a DNA test. Parenthood has superceeded marriage for years.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Families need les and less legal recognition. With so many divorces and pre-marital pregnancies, parenthood is no longer defined by marital bonds. It is defined by a DNA test. Parenthood has superceeded marriage for years.

If anything they need more recognition. Especially in the age of serial polygamy.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

That's a pretty regressive idea that will never get any support. Parenthood is genetic. Becaue it is, the family becomes irrelevant. Unless you define parenthood my a marriage, this will not change.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus That's a pretty regressive idea that will never get any support. Parenthood is genetic. Becaue it is, the family becomes irrelevant. Unless you define parenthood my a marriage, this will not change.

You missed my point. In the age of serial polygamy a family becomes a very different thing yet the children of the various parents are schlepped around like so much luggage. And step parents may not have the rights they need to handle step children.

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

After pages more of refutation by Dirty Name, I see he still can't produce ONE official link to this government societal organization concept.

You do know what an OFFICIAL LINK TO INFORMATION IS RIGHT?

It is not a bunch of your words, as you tried to use in your post AS a link.

It is a hyper-link, to an actual government DOCUMENT outlining what you CLAIM TO BE THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.

You are not a debater, you are in denial.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Prometheus ]Seriously - if marriage is a legal issue, you have to allow all variations.

You don't have to include all variations unless you wish to alter the definition of marriage by ignoring the societal benefits of the nuclear family and elevating homosexual marriage to the same level. The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage argues that homosexual marriages are not the legal equivalent of straight marriage. But if you choose to IGNORE that argument, THEN you have to allow all other variations.

Isn't formalized marriage a basically religious thing anyway?

No. You are referring to a wedding ceremony. There is zero religious requirement for a man and a woman to be married. Wedding ceremonies are traditionally religious, but are certainly not required by law.

Exactly - so dosen't that show that government shouldn't be in the marrying business.

So we just do away with 229 years of marriage law, property rights law, estate law, child custody law, divorce law, alimony law, paternity law, etc. Is that your solution?

Can you now see why the vast majority of Americans are concerned that the gay marriage movement will weaken the institution of marriage? It couldn't be more obvious.

[Dirty Name]

They are asking for such recognition because they are married in every other way

Save one... they cannot produce offspring of their own, there is no female spouse who will experience pregnancy and the potential hardships thereof. There is no spouse who will be persuaded to sacrifice a career for the betterment of their children, simply as a product of consummating the marriage.

With homosexuals, they can engage in sexual acts with one another all day long, and nothing will ever materialize that would have the same impact on them as a new child would have on a heterosexual couple. And because such children are the NATURAL product of the heterosexual relationship, our society has a compelling interest to ensure that mothers and fathers stay together to provide the best possible environment for their children.

Quote by: Starboy Families need legal recognition for a variety of reasons. Have a family some time and you will see.

And my point all along is that gay couples don't have the SAME NEEDS as a heterosexual couple. Heterosexual couples with the potential to produce offspring require a great deal more from society and government than a homosexual couple.

I further argue, and have yet to be challenged, that a gay couple has no greater need than two non-sexual friends who have decided to live together and take care of one another. Thus, what's good for gays is good for anyone who declares they have the same needs.

And now to answer Belverron's lingering question about what the difference is between a married heterosexual couple vs. a male and female living together:

The difference is that the government has no way of knowing whether or not the unmarried couple is sexually intimate or not. Marriage is a declaration of intent in that regard. In the government's eyes, there is no difference between an unmarried hetero couple living together than any other two people living together. Why should the government care?

[Dirty Name]

Let's get this clear. It's not about special rights. And from your point of view--in which heterosexual couples can be given preference--I hardly see it as a valid argument.

If everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, there is no "special right."

However, if "any two consenting adults" can marry, but incestuous couples are excluded from this, then homosexual couples AND heterosexual couples are granted "special rights." I left off the heterosexual component because it is gays who are apparently seeking those special right for both parties.

Get it now?