Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Taxes. The non-human participant won't have a SSN (and won't be able to fill out any of the required forms to get a Taxpayer Identification Number).

Sounds like those bigoted forms need to be updated.

Originally Posted by zsdersw

The non-human participant also won't be able to decide anything on your behalf if you become incapacitated or assume any responsibilities if you die.

I don't see why this is a fundamentally necessary part of mariage.

Originally Posted by zsdersw

Laws and legalities apply to people, as only people can be held accountable to them because only people can agree to abide by them and give their consent to the government (which is required for government to have any power).

Yeah, consent is not required for the government to have power.

[thraashman]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

I said consent was not part of the fundamental definition. Not that it didn't have one.



This question is only relevant assuming one of the following

(1) This is no real difference between men and women

or

(2) There is a real difference between a black and white person.

But consent IS part of the fundamental definition in America, and therefore there is NO universal fundamental definition. Which is what you're admitting to by trying to claim that something that isn't part of the American fundamental definition is part of the fundamental definition. And since there is no universal fundamental definition, that definition can be whatever the society thinks it should be. And the societies that revere equality, will inevitably define marriage with equality and not persecution.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by werepossum

This is one of the reasons that denying same-sex marriage is an anachronism. At one point it was part and parcel of our society marginalizing gays. People who are predominantly gay were forced to either deny those feelings or accept being marginalized. Today we no longer do that; people are free to be as openly gay as they wish. Whatever bad effects (if any) come with open gay relationships are here now, yet we're denying that part that strengthens society. I think this denial also weakens marriage as an institution. If one is arguing that marriage is valuable and positive, then the question "Then why don't you want these people to have it?" must surely resonate.

Denying same-sex in not an anachronism. There is a reason that nearly every society felt the need to create opposite-sex marriage, but not same-sex marriage.

And I take issue even with the wording if "denying same-sex marriage". The wording implies that marriage inherently exists for everyone and we only "deny" it to certain groups, when really marriage inherently doesn't exist and we only extend the institution of marriage for certain relationships.

[thraashman]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Denying same-sex in not an anachronism. There is a reason that nearly every society felt the need to create opposite-sex marriage, but not same-sex marriage.

And I take issue even with the wording if "denying same-sex marriage". The wording implies that marriage inherently exists for everyone and we only "deny" it to certain groups, when really marriage inherently doesn't exist and we only extend the institution of marriage for certain relationships.

That's the same as saying that freedom doesn't inherently exist (it hasn't through most of history) and that we only extend it to certain races, so slavery is ok.

[JulesMaximus]

Originally Posted by drebo

Neither do I.

However, there is less focus on masculinity in our world today, and I do think it has negatively affected us.

The current generation is one of sheltered infants incapable of doing anything for themselves or enduring any kind of hardship. Seriously, when you ban keeping score in school-time athletic competition, you're not fostering a healthy society.

We've lost sight of what made America and replaced it with an ideology that will be our undoing.

I'm not sure where you get that from. I have a 10 year old son and he plays on a local youth basketball league and they most certainly do keep score, they have refs who call fouls and players incur penalties just like they do in the NBA. They win and lose games and they have playoffs at the end of the season where you win or you are eliminated.

Last week my son's team only had 4 players show up so they played 4 ten minute quarters with 4 players against 5 on the other team... because all of their players showed up. And they lost the game despite being only 2 points down at halftime. My son had blisters on both ankles, our fault for not putting socks on him that came up high enough.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by thraashman

That's the same as saying that freedom doesn't inherently exist (it hasn't through most of history) and that we only extend it to certain races, so slavery is ok.

Freedom exists unless someone takes it away.

Non-marriage exists unless society creates marriage.

I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

[thraashman]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Freedom exists unless someone takes it away.

Non-marriage exists unless society creates marriage.

I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

I find this fascinating. You constantly come up with new and idiotic ways to say the same wrong thing. At least you're consistent in your message of hating women and homosexuals. Doesn't make it right. Makes you a bad person.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by thraashman

I find this fascinating. You constantly come up with new and idiotic ways to say the same wrong thing. At least you're consistent in your message of hating women and homosexuals. Doesn't make it right. Makes you a bad person.

WTF are you talking about.

Saying that freedom is something you have unless others take it from you and marriage is something you don't have unless other people recognize it has nothing to do with women or homosexuals. It is a plain and simple fact.

Is your reasoning for supporting SSM really so bad that you have to throw a fit about anything that says SSM is not a natural truth?

[JulesMaximus]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

WTF are you talking about.

Saying that freedom is something you have unless others take it from you and marriage is something you don't have unless other people recognize it has nothing to do with women or homosexuals. It is a plain and simple fact.

Is your reasoning for supporting SSM really so bad that you have to throw a fit about anything that says SSM is not a natural truth?

I've yet to see a reasonable argument against SSM... and FTR I used to oppose it but came to see that the reasons I thought it was a bad idea were nothing but bullshit.

[Rob M.]

Originally Posted by JulesMaximus

I've yet to see a reasonable argument against SSM... and FTR I used to oppose it but came to see that the reasons I thought it was a bad idea were nothing but bullshit.

I am not siding with Nehalem, but I think his issue is with the word "deny" as regards SS couples.

However, if you're not extending rights, then by default you're denying them.

But, you can't technically deny something that was never extended. Looking at it this way, you can't claim that a country denied you your religious freedom, for instance, if there was never religious freedom offered to anyone period.


I dunno.... I know what I'm trying to say, just can't quite explain it.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

I am not siding with Nehalem, but I think his issue is with the word "deny" as regards SS couples.

However, if you're not extending rights, then by default you're denying them.

But, you can't technically deny something that was never extended. Looking at it this way, you can't claim that a country denied you your religious freedom, for instance, if there was never religious freedom offered to anyone period.


I dunno.... I know what I'm trying to say, just can't quite explain it.

It is just easier and nicer if you extend any freedom you come up with to everyone. No need to deny people things.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by soulcougher73

It is just easier and nicer if you extend any freedom you come up with to everyone. No need to deny people things.

So you have finally seen the light and agree with extending the right to marry to those attracted to animals and objects.

After all, no need to deny people things.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by Rob M.

I am not siding with Nehalem, but I think his issue is with the word "deny" as regards SS couples.

However, if you're not extending rights, then by default you're denying them.

But, you can't technically deny something that was never extended. Looking at it this way, you can't claim that a country denied you your religious freedom, for instance, if there was never religious freedom offered to anyone period.


I dunno.... I know what I'm trying to say, just can't quite explain it.

What I am saying is that marriage is not a natural right. Rights like freedom of speech, freedom from slavery, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms are things you have unless someone takes them away from you. It takes the actions of other to [b]deny[/b you those rights.

Marriage is about the societal(or government) recognition of a relationship. In order for marriage to exist society has to grant that recognition to your relationship.

Now none of this says anything about whether society should extend recognition of same-sex romantic relationships. But it is a little disturbing that those that support SSM seem to have such a large problem recognizing this essential truth.

[soulcougher73]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

So you have finally seen the light and agree with extending the right to marry to those attracted to animals and objects.

After all, no need to deny people things.

Nope. Nice try though. When you grow up and let go of your moms teet let us know.

[zsdersw]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

Sounds like those bigoted forms need to be updated.

Sure. How, specifically, would you update those forms to allow any and all non-human things to fill them out?

I don't see why this is a fundamentally necessary part of mariage.

It is as much a part of marriage as anything else.

Yeah, consent is not required for the government to have power.

Yes it is. In a free society such as ours, government's power comes from the consent of the governed. We're under no obligation to remain citizens if we don't consent to be governed by our government and if enough people do not give their consent the word that describes it best is: revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed