We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences
along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site
is free and easy, just CLICK
Already a member and forgot your password? Click
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by SFG75, May 29, 2007.
^^ Blackmail,charming indeed.
objective reality ?
I know, it's an unfamiliar concept to you.
I thought this one was fun, in a depressing sort of way:
In an attempt to outlaw same-sex marriage, it seems Texas has outlawed ALL marriage.
Why do you think you know that it's an unfamiliar concept to me?
I would vote against legislation allowing gay marriage.
The government does not have the power, constitutionally, to dictate who can and who cannot marry--gay, straight, polygamous, or otherwise. By granting the government the power to allow gay marriage, we are granting the government the right to disallow marriages as well. Allowing the government to run outside its constitutional bounds to grant marriage between straight couples was the first wrong move. Allowing the government to run further outside the bounds of their power is just another wrong step.
The question should not be, "Should the government allow gay marriage?" The fight should not be for expanding the government's power outside of its constitutional bounds even further. The fight should be about correcting the previous wrong of ever allowing government to overstep its power and begin dictating who is allowed to marry and who is not allowed to marry. Marriage is none of the government's business.
Interesting idea Jez. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I certainly don't disagree with you about the government needing to stay out of our bedrooms.
How would this work practically speaking? Should government officials still have the power to marry couples? If government has no power in who can and can't marry, what's to stop the people who want to marry inanimate objects or pets? Should they be stopped? What about someone wanting to marry a minor - with or without parental consent?
Thanks, but it's not just my idea. The Constitution does not contain a provision for marriage, so the Founding Fathers then did not intend for the government to have that power. At least not the federal government.
No, and they technically don't have the power to begin with.
Should stopping them be the responsibility of the government? Why? They're weird, but is victimless weirdness really cause for government censure? If they're boinking their pets, we already have laws that protect the rights of animals.
Without parental consent? We already have laws about sex with minors as well. According to our existing (nonmarital) laws, minors are not allowed to make decisions like that without their parents' consent.
Much of the fears associated with removing the government's power over marriage are unfounded because government's oversight of these matters in marriage law are just redundancies of other, more legitimate, laws.
Jez, would you then agree that tax breaks for married couples should be eliminated and everyone taxed purely as individuals? And how would that also affect, say, company insurance plans that cover families of employees?
I also agree it isn't something in which the Government should stick it's nose, but its nose is already in and to pull it out would have many ramifications.
Yes, but the tax system is another one that has gone far outside the realm of what is allowed.
Private businesses are free to choose to alter (or not) their rates based on whatever they want, including marital status.
That is a huge consideration, but it isn't excuse enough to continue on the same wrong path, or make it worse through even more intrusions (like gay marriage laws).
Well, the federal trial over the constitutionality of California's Prop 8 rested today.
No verdict expected for weeks, and even then, no matter what the verdict is it's probably going to be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.
The problem with this argument is that in the meantime gay adults are denied a fundamental right to marry until we figure out how to disentangle the government from its role in sanctioning marriage. How does the government "dictate who is allowed to marry and who is not allowed to marry" besides not allowing two gay adults to do so?
This is less about an expansion of government power than it is about an expansion of gay rights. A fear of an increase in government power (and why it follows that that is always a negative) at the expense of a particular group of people is placing value in the abstract over the apparent.
Yes, and the rights of every other possible marriage combination that isn't one human male and one human female are also denied. Had the government never gotten involved, no one's rights on this matter would have been denied.
If you fight to allow gay marriage, then you are only fighting for one group while denying other groups even longer. You are not fighting against discrimination in general, you are just fighting against the discrimination of one group. You are not saying discrimination in general is wrong, you are saying discriminating is ok, just not if it's against a two-person gay or straight couple. You are still sanctioning a government "white list" of allowed marriages, and therefore you are still sanctioning the government to discriminate against people in regard to marriage.
If you fight to remove government from where it constitutionally does not belong, then you are fighting a shorter fight. You're cutting off an arm, I'm suggesting cutting off the head. Your approach necessitates that each new group will have to fight for their inclusion on a government white list. My approach would deny no group the right.
Can a man marry a real doll girl? Can a woman marry five men? Can a man marry his cat? If aliens came to earth, could a human marry an alien? Etc. Under the current system, none of these groupings are on the white list, so all of these groupings are by default banned until they make and win their individual fight.
No, it is not.
The human part is a given.
Who? What groups are you talking about?
What are these "new groups?" I see what you mean here by getting government out of it entirely, but I'm not sure it's realistic. Other than not allowing two gay adults to marry the government does not regulate who marries who to nearly the extent you suggest. I'm not clear what a government "white list" is. Again, who is currently being denied the right to marry?
The pandora's box argument. What exactly is ambiguous about two consenting adults?
No, the relationship will blow up.
No, she would go crazy and kill them after a week of picking up after them, and don't even bring up their inability to hit the hamper.
Yes, an angry feline with its claws out is no different than...oh wait...I mean......:whistling:
Lisa Marie, Michael
Is it? Ok, what about human/non-human pairings?
I listed them. There are also all the unknown pairings/groupings that may come up in the future. I'm not sexually deviant, so I have trouble fathoming what some other people might want to marry. Regardless, they're all banned until they start and win their individual fight.
I answered the "new groups" above and previously.
It is realistic. The government has not been involved in marriages until recently, I believe it was early 1900s. Given how long the US has been in existence, and functioning, that isn't that much time and clearly shows how the government's involvement is not essential and not impossible to remove. Government wouldn't like it, but the government is subject to the people and the Constitution. It's time we remind them of that.
How does the government not regulate the marriages I used as examples? Are they allowed by the government?
A white list is the opposite of a black list. Effectively, a white list is a list of "allowed" and a black list is a list of "not allowed."
I've already answered, several times now, who is being denied marriage. The fact of the matter is, if there is a white list, which there is, then that means anyone not on it is denied by default.
No, the reality. Nothing is ambiguous about two consenting adults. Why are four consenting adults denied?
You had me rolling! :lol:
Okay, I guess it would have to be stated then as - two adult and consenting human beings. Explain to me who exactly this leaves out?
I can imagine the rebuttal to the above comment so I would like to further clarify.
Anybody who wants to marry a favorite pet is, yes, then in fact denied that desire. Does the law not do that in innumerable instances already? Deny certain desires. In fact, isn't it meant to do just that? For example, I might want to kill someone that murdered a relative of mine while he or she is being tried, but the law states that this is illegal.
I think that some degree of respectability and importance has to remain with marriage and by allowing a person to marry his or her Raggedy Ann undermines this importance somewhat. However, if you are an adult human being who wants to marry another adult human being you may both marry each other. Again, this allows everyone that meets the specific standards I've stated a way to marry.
I also think that letting any combination of anything whatsoever marry muddles too many other areas of society to be practical. Would Fido be eligible for Social Security benefits? Does the apple tree file a life insurance claim if its spouse should fall off of it and break his neck? If one claimed to be married it would all of a sudden be necessary to ask the question - to what?
Surely people here are smarter than resorting to the slippery slope fallacy. If two adult men want to get married then what is to stop them from marrying their gold fish?
If we grant civil rights to gays and lesbians then what is to stop us from giving poodles civil rights.
Just to be clear where I stand. I agree. See final comment on post #93 is same as slippery slope fallacy.
Separate names with a comma.