Same sex marraige resumes in California

[jackstar7]

You're right -- you've seen things hardly any of us have, so you should be more appreciative and keep complaints to a minimum.

The crux of my post was "I complained about not having shoes until I saw a guy with no feet", etc.

Generally speaking, looking at the plight of others helps put yours in perspective and helps you to realize that what you have isn't so bad.

It's a humbling though process -- and many aren't willing, or psychologically equipped to look at life that way.

"Not so bad". You're advocating complacency rather than striving to demonstrate real virtues, rather than living up to our potential.



The other thing that most people are not willing nor equipped to do is look at life honestly. Inequality and injustice exist thanks to tradition and an unwillingness to shake free of its stupidity.

 

[nehalem256]

Do you hate or have contempt for homosexuals and romantic homosexual relationships?

I don't care about homosexual couples any more than I care about people's best-friendships. As such neither should receive special societal/government recognition.

(1) Marriage is a financial contract. It gives financial benefits to couples.

Marriage is a contract in the same way a corporation is a person. It is a convenient way of looking at things so long as you realize it is not really accurate.

To see how clear this is just combine the 2 ideas. Obviously there can be no legal argument against a person marrying a corporation right?

(2) Divorce doesn't negate from the point of marriage which is for two people to form a union.

The point of marriage isn't for 2 people to form a union. That is if anything a statement of what a marriage is. Its like saying that the purpose of marriage is to be wet.

 

[nehalem256]

If you imagine any other group that has been historically repressed you will see how poor this argument is, as historical injustice can change. let's try it:

Atheists are fundamentally unequal to believing persons. A fact that has been recognized through the entirety of human history. Treating unequal humans equally seems like inequality to me. (ENDED : 1791, US bill of rights)

Slaves are fundamentally unequal to free persons. A fact that has been recognized through the entirety of human history. Treating unequal humans equally seems like inequality to me. (ENDED : 1865, 13th amendment)

Women are fundamentally unequal to Male persons. A fact that has been recognized through the entirety of human history. Treating unequal humans equally seems like inequality to me. (ENDED : 1964, the civil rights act)

Gay couples are fundamentally unequal to straight couples. A fact that has been recognized through the entirety of human history. Treating unequal couples equally seems like inequality to me. (ENDED : 2013, Robert's Court Ruling)


Some people still treat each group unequally, but that's a behavior often referred to as "bigotry".

(1) Slaves are still unequal to free persons. We just ended slavery.

(2) For atheists and women I think it is more like people realized they were wrong.

(3) You will note that in all the other examples we are talking about INDIVIDUALS, not couples.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't want to sound insulting, but that is a really stupid way to run a country. You sound like you're advocating that as long as there is some place on Earth worse than America, we shouldn't be worried about improving our quality of life at home. And that's simply ridiculous. We don't get to call ourselves the greatest nation on Earth if our standard is "at least we aren't Haiti." If there's injustice happening, it's on us to fix it, not shake our heads and say, "Well, kids are starving in Africa, why are these gays so damn uppity?" We're better than North Korea and Afghanistan and it's precisely because we do strive for equality and justice. The argument you seem to be advancing is insulting to everything our country was founded on.

You're not insulting.

All I am saying is individually, appreciate what you have -- it's the attitude I am focusing on, not the improvement part.

On the flip side, people in Korea would wonder what you're complaining about.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

You're not insulting.

All I am saying is individually, appreciate what you have -- it's the attitude I am focusing on, not the improvement part.

On the flip side, people in Korea would wonder what you're complaining about.

Appreciating what you have and striving for a better quality of life don't have to be mutually exclusive. I don't live in North Korea, and I'm grateful for that, but the fact that a terrible place exists on Earth doesn't negate the idea that we should always be striving to improve our quality of life in America.

 

[Retro Rob]

"Not so bad". You're advocating complacency rather than striving to demonstrate real virtues, rather than living up to our potential.



The other thing that most people are not willing nor equipped to do is look at life honestly. Inequality and injustice exist thanks to tradition and an unwillingness to shake free of its stupidity.

Contentment, makes one happy. We're supposed to be progressive, but I think there's a fine line between making steady progress and feeling that its deserved.

For instance, I work as the lead desktop admin for my company. While I am making progress to sys administration, I don't feel since I'm here its something I deserve to have. I think when you have than attitude, I think greed and needless competition fosters, and everyone losses because others can become an enemy.

So if individuals realize we have it good already, we can make it together, while still respecting one another. That's idealistic, but the point I hope to make.

 

[jackstar7]

Contentment, makes one happy. We're supposed to be progressive, but I think there's a fine line between making steady progress and feeling that its deserved.

For instance, I work as the lead desktop admin for my company. While I am making progress to sys administration, I don't feel since I'm here its something I deserve to have. I think when you have than attitude, I think greed and needless competition fosters, and everyone losses because others can become an enemy.

So if individuals realize we have it good already, we can make it together, while still respecting one another. That's idealistic, but the point I hope to make.

No one is promised happiness. We're promised the pursuit. We get the struggle. Though you seem to say that fairness (in the law) is not deserved, is that what you mean?

I find contentment to be a horrible state though, so I cannot be empathetic towards your perspective on that.

 

[busydude]

You're right -- you've seen things hardly any of us have, so you should be more appreciative and keep complaints to a minimum.

The crux of my post was "I complained about not having shoes until I saw a guy with no feet", etc.

Generally speaking, looking at the plight of others helps put yours in perspective and helps you to realize that what you have isn't so bad.

It's a humbling though process -- and many aren't willing, or psychologically equipped to look at life that way.

This is the most insulting and vile piece of crap I've ever read. Yes, things aren't so bad in the US when compared to the third world, does that mean US doesn't have to change? So all the people who are facing inequality in the US should look at poor countries and say "Hey, it isn't bad at all here. The way we're being discriminated is better than what others are going through."

Your train of thought is just ridiculous.

 

[randomrogue]

Yes, I believe we have a Creator -- probably the most accurate statement in the document and the English language!

Thanks, Random.... I forgot about that part.

That was an intellectually dishonest response and is against the spirit of the Discussion club. Answer the question please.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is the most insulting and vile piece of crap I've ever read. Yes, things aren't so bad in the US when compared to the third world, does that mean US doesn't have to change? So all the people who are facing inequality in the US should look at poor countries and say "Hey, it isn't bad at all here. The way we're being discriminated is better than what others are going through."

Your train of thought is just ridiculous.

My bad, guess I was taking about something else.

My apologies for the misunderstanding...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

(1) Slaves are still unequal to free persons. We just ended slavery.

(2) For atheists and women I think it is more like people realized they were wrong.

(3) You will note that in all the other examples we are talking about INDIVIDUALS, not couples.

The premise of your argument was about historical repression; not a distinction between dyadic and individual level relationships to the state. But even on those grounds the repression of atheists and other sects is a function of membership (or lack there of) in a church, which is a dyadic relationship.

There were even repressive elements against folks for what party they sided with.

The removal of historical repression is not itself a kind of repression; as you can see from my numerous examples.

 

[nehalem256]

The premise of your argument was about historical repression; not a distinction between dyadic and individual level relationships to the state. But even on those grounds the repression of atheists and other sects is a function of membership (or lack there of) in a church, which is a dyadic relationship.

There were even repressive elements against folks for what party they sided with.

The removal of historical repression is not itself a kind of repression; as you can see from my numerous examples.

Not recognizing a couples relationship as special is not repression.

 

[jackstar7]

Not recognizing a couples relationship as special is not repression.

Withholding rights and benefits extended to other relationships that are identical in all but the sex of the individuals involved is.

 

[randomrogue]

Looks like the UK is about to legalize same sex marriage too.

 

[nehalem256]

Withholding rights and benefits extended to other relationships that are identical in all but the sex of the individuals involved is.

Treating fundamentally different relationships differently is not repression.

Saying that ignoring the significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships they are identical is non-nonsensical

see
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35249356&postcount=295

 

[jackstar7]

Treating fundamentally different relationships differently is not repression.

Saying that ignoring the significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships they are identical is non-nonsensical

see
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35249356&postcount=295

You continue to hang your hat on the procreation idea despite it being full of infertile holes.

The differences are significant to you. Not to the law.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd like to issue Zimmerman type challenge to pro gay marriage supporters.

You all day in, day out make the claim that Nahelem's opposition is motivated by hate.

The challenge is for you to prove it, or stop saying it. I personally won't attribute hate to anyone, but since you all love to thrown that word around and apply across the board, why not offer up some proof.

..or simply stop saying it.

 

[jackstar7]

I'd like to issue Zimmerman type challenge to pro gay marriage supporters.

You all day in, day out make the claim that Nahelem's opposition is motivated by hate.

The challenge is for you to prove it, or stop saying it. I personally won't attribute hate to anyone, but since you all love to thrown that word around and apply across the board, why not offer up some proof.

..or simply stop saying it.

I don't say it. I think his opposition is founded in trolling, not hate.

 

[nehalem256]

You continue to hang your hat on the procreation idea despite it being full of infertile holes.

The differences are significant to you. Not to the law.

If you reject the idea of marriage being about procreation because of "infertile holes" then you are pretty much rejecting there being any basis for marriage, as any supposed reason for marriage can be shown to have holes in the same way.

For example:

Marriage is about societal stability - Well except for allowing people to divorce for any frivolous reason they feel like resulting in a

Marriage is about dividing assets - Putting aside the fact that this is essentially a circular argument about "we need marriage so people can get divorced". We still allow poor people to get married.

In essence what you are saying is that marriage is nothing more than a benefits grabbing circle-jerk. You are not making an argument for same-sex marriage, but against same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course the state recognizes marriage because it benefits society. See for example:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35249356&postcount=295

You are confusing marriage with the state's recognition of it. There is no reason for the state to recognize it at all, other than the reason I already gave, or other purely legalistic reasons which have nothing to do with gay v. straight. Marriage can exist as a social and religious construct, without state involvement. The state issuing a legal license is unnecessary to achieve whatever supposed societal benefits marriage confers.

What other conceivable purpose would the state have for issuing licenses to people who have formed personal romantic and sexual relationships, other than what I have stated? The relationships will exist regardless of state involvement, and procreation is a natural instinct.

Also, if your logic - that the state recognizes marriage to encourage procreation - holds up, then any country experiencing an over-population problem ought to cease recognizing marriage at once. Yet they do not. Every country, no matter how over-populated, legally recognizes marriage.

You do realize that is only relatively recently that women were allowed to own assets right?

In which legal system, at what time and what place? There are a variety of legal reasons to recognize marriage. The one I mentioned is the principle one. Laws regarding who can hold or inherit assets, dowries, etc. have varied considerably across cultures and over time. There has always been purely legal reasons for the state to recognize marriage.

So marriage exists so people can get divorced? 🙄

What an idiotic re-statement of what I wrote. No, "marriage" exists for personal reasons. The state's recognition of marriage exists so that IF people get divorced, there is an orderly process of dis-entangling and apportioning their assets. Divorce in some cases is inevitable either way.

It is entirely possible for 2 people to live together without co-mingling assets. Seems like marriage encourages people to co-mingling assets creating the problem in the first place.

It's hard to say what started the practice of co-mingling. Marriage undoubtedly existed as an institution before it was ever recognized legally. When two people have formed a lifelong domestic partnership, it makes sense as a matter of convenience to co-mingle, particularly as the people involved have no plans of ever splitting up. The problem, of course, occurs when they do, nevertheless, split up. Without state involvement, the parties have no recourse but to physically grab assets before their ex-partner does.

Also, if marriage is about dividing assets why do we let poor people get married?

Er, what? What would be the basis for disallowing "poor people" from getting married? They could acquire assets during the marriage, or have a very small estate to divide. Either way, it doesn't matter, because there is no harm in recognizing it.

To be clear, there are other reasons the state recognizes marriage, and predictably, they are all of a legal nature. For example, rules of intestate succession upon death, i.e. inheritance. Another is in the the modern world, the apportionment of public benefits.

The state legally recognizes marriage for purely legalistic reasons because the state's recognition is, by definition, a legal act with legal ramification. None of these things is particular or exclusive to straight couples.

Discrimination as to "marriage" belongs in the private sector, at the level of the church and the individual. There's no reason for it to exist at the level of the state. Enforcing someone's idea of what is a traditional marriage "under God" or any other ethos is not the function of the state, most certainly not the modern state.

 

[Retro Rob]

That was an intellectually dishonest response and is against the spirit of the Discussion club. Answer the question please.

I believe it, wholeheartedly.

I also acknowledge the fact they believed in a Creator.... not meaning the "Christian God", but a Creator.

If you're saying they're wrong about a "creator", then we can question the entire document on grounds of context and human error.

A question to you, are they wrong about a Creator?

 

[jackstar7]

If you're saying they're wrong about a "creator", then we can question the entire document on grounds of context and human error.

A question to you, are they wrong about a Creator?

That's not how that works, actually. They can be wrong about the Creator as it has nothing to do with the law.

You can choose to extrapolate that they were wrong about more simply because they were wrong in their deism, but that's you making that leap. And it is not a responsible one.

 

[randomrogue]

I believe it, wholeheartedly.

I also acknowledge the fact they believed in a Creator.... not meaning the "Christian God", but a Creator.

If you're saying they're wrong about a "creator", then we can question the entire document on grounds of context and human error.

A question to you, are they wrong about a Creator?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'll quote it again. Do you believe this paragraph? Don't single out one word and ignore the rest.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not how that works, actually. They can be wrong about the Creator as it has nothing to do with the law.

You can choose to extrapolate that they were wrong about more simply because they were wrong in their deism, but that's you making that leap. And it is not a responsible one.

How many people read about a miracle(s) they don't believe and discredit the ENTIRE Bible?

Is that responsible?

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not how that works, actually. They can be wrong about the Creator as it has nothing to do with the law.

You can choose to extrapolate that they were wrong about more simply because they were wrong in the deism, but that's you making that leap. And it is not a responsible one.

True.