3 ms·

I am opposed to our government getting involved in marriage, period. Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions blessed. Bu

by maur33n 18y ago

I am opposed to our government getting involved in marriage, period. Gays nor straights should have to turn to the government to have their unions blessed. But since straights have such advantages given to them as a result of our legal system, it would be silly not to have the rights given to all. Marriage is NOT a religious construct. It is a construct granted because of other dependent bodies of law, including taxes, health care, child custody, property rights. Without marriage laws to assist, it is more difficult to have our courts administer the other dependent laws. You are therefore denying gays equal access to the legal system and its protections as a result. You have the right to believe in whatever you want. You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have. Go to church all you want. Just leave me out of your bigotry.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
I'm not religious -- perhaps you missed that point. Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were given based on these definitions. Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a cultural war (unless you want to do that). Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with somebody who basically agrees with you? And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.
- maur33n 18y ago
  Civil unions are the same argument as "separate but equal". You are a bigot. You wish gays to be set aside as "different".
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Yeah that would work if we were talking about building a school for gays. This is not 1960 and we are not talking about African Americans. Once civil unions are defined there is no way they can be treated any differently than other legal relationships, such as limited power of attorney. Think this through. Please. Stop using a civil rights metaphor. It's not. It's more a question of the licensing power of the state and the nomenclature of the privileges involved. If I thought for a minute that civil unions were "separate but equal" I would not support them. But I do not feel that way. It's just rhetoric.
- ja2ke 18y ago
  By this logic you also advocate replacing any state or federal use of the term "marriage" with "civil union" for heterosexual couples as well, and leave "marriage" as a term exclusively to religious groups, then?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    I don't have an opinion one way or another on that one. Since the gist of my argument was "let's not fight over something we can solve" perhaps we just add the term "civil union" wherever the term marriage appears. Or perhaps we have a constitutional ammendment that makes the two phrases equal. For instance, I don't think you could go back in the historical record and change terms. The answer to that question may be based on how you make laws. Another poster made a comment about 3 or more people in a union. I believe this follows naturally as well from an extension of the term "marriage". Things like multiple partners seem just fine in the 21st century. At least to me, but I'm a libertarian. Since the term seems to be opening up, as a hacker I say make the new definition in one place to be equal to anywhere else the term "marriage" was used.
- Tichy 18y ago
  Marriage is not a religious idea. It is a result of evolution, like everything else. Being a couple makes it easier to accomplish certain tasks. There are also animals who "marry" for life, it is just a strategy to cope with certain problems. Therefore cultures with marriage seem to have prevailed in the evolutionary competition. Religion is just the handbook for a society (like the "turnkey" instructions manual for a McDonalds branch), therefore it includes marriage. Also, I am confused: you are not religious, yet you style yourself as a supersensitive guy respecting the feelings of religious people. How about respecting the feelings of your son?
defen 18y ago
> You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have. I suppose you don't believe in imprisoning criminals then?

by maur33n 18y ago

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

I'm not religious -- perhaps you missed that point. Marriage is deeply a religious idea. Religions and their ideas of marriage pre-date all existing governments and other social structures. Therefore it would be silly to make an argument that marriage is government-based: it's not. Governments simply codified and wrote into law those commonly-held ideas of marriage. Later on, as society became more complex, sure, other rights were given based on these definitions. Civil Unions offer all of the advantages of marriage without getting into a cultural war (unless you want to do that). Sounds like you enjoy feeling very self-righteous about your beliefs, ie, the whole "in MY country" routine. I wouldn't want to deny rights to anybody. Why don't you calm down a bit and realize that you're trying to argue with somebody who basically agrees with you? And don't call me a bigot. You don't know me, and based on your post you don't even understand my position on the issue. It's an ad hominem.

maur33n 18y ago
Civil unions are the same argument as "separate but equal". You are a bigot. You wish gays to be set aside as "different".
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Yeah that would work if we were talking about building a school for gays. This is not 1960 and we are not talking about African Americans. Once civil unions are defined there is no way they can be treated any differently than other legal relationships, such as limited power of attorney. Think this through. Please. Stop using a civil rights metaphor. It's not. It's more a question of the licensing power of the state and the nomenclature of the privileges involved. If I thought for a minute that civil unions were "separate but equal" I would not support them. But I do not feel that way. It's just rhetoric.
ja2ke 18y ago
By this logic you also advocate replacing any state or federal use of the term "marriage" with "civil union" for heterosexual couples as well, and leave "marriage" as a term exclusively to religious groups, then?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  I don't have an opinion one way or another on that one. Since the gist of my argument was "let's not fight over something we can solve" perhaps we just add the term "civil union" wherever the term marriage appears. Or perhaps we have a constitutional ammendment that makes the two phrases equal. For instance, I don't think you could go back in the historical record and change terms. The answer to that question may be based on how you make laws. Another poster made a comment about 3 or more people in a union. I believe this follows naturally as well from an extension of the term "marriage". Things like multiple partners seem just fine in the 21st century. At least to me, but I'm a libertarian. Since the term seems to be opening up, as a hacker I say make the new definition in one place to be equal to anywhere else the term "marriage" was used.
Tichy 18y ago
Marriage is not a religious idea. It is a result of evolution, like everything else. Being a couple makes it easier to accomplish certain tasks. There are also animals who "marry" for life, it is just a strategy to cope with certain problems. Therefore cultures with marriage seem to have prevailed in the evolutionary competition. Religion is just the handbook for a society (like the "turnkey" instructions manual for a McDonalds branch), therefore it includes marriage. Also, I am confused: you are not religious, yet you style yourself as a supersensitive guy respecting the feelings of religious people. How about respecting the feelings of your son?

defen 18y ago

> You do not have the right, in MY country, to deny other human beings rights or protections that others have. I suppose you don't believe in imprisoning criminals then?