What will be the next Great Progressive Cause™ now that same-sex marriage is common?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
It was the children. Why would a man have cared to enter into an agreement to give his possessions to a woman if he died?

And the family of the partner is completely ridiculous. His possession could have just passed to his family.

Redacted my initial response.

Would you answer your own question: Why would a man care to enter into an agreement to give his possessions to a woman if he died?
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The current (in most places) rule on marriage includes:

1. Must be of opposite sex.
2. Must be a certain genetic distance apart or further.
3. Must be of a certain age or older.
4. Must be mentally capable of entering into a legal contract.
5. Must not already be married to anyone.

If we are to remove number 1, why must we keep the others? I will address some of them. 3 and 4 are related, due to the legal system determining that children are not mentally capable of entering into legal contracts. 4 also ensures only humans are allowed. These I understand and believe we should keep.

But what about 2 and 5? There is no reason to keep 5, provided we limit the size of the polygamist union (I suggest 5 as a trial run). Love is powerful enough to include more than just two people, right? The reason behind number 2 is to prevent genetic faults, since closely related people most likely share the same recessive genetic faults. If we require all those in the incestuous union to be made sterile, that portion goes away and there is no longer any legitimate reason to deny them.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
some people are just to dense. or in denial to be able to understand the difference between a traditional marriage, and a gay marriage.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
some people are just to dense. or in denial to be able to understand the difference between a traditional marriage, and a gay marriage.

Or you're a terrible communicator and have not explained things to a satisfying conclusion.

But sure, blame the audience.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
The current (in most places) rule on marriage includes:

1. Must be of opposite sex.
2. Must be a certain genetic distance apart or further.
3. Must be of a certain age or older.
4. Must be mentally capable of entering into a legal contract.
5. Must not already be married to anyone.

If we are to remove number 1, why must we keep the others? I will address some of them. 3 and 4 are related, due to the legal system determining that children are not mentally capable of entering into legal contracts. 4 also ensures only humans are allowed. These I understand and believe we should keep.

But what about 2 and 5? There is no reason to keep 5, provided we limit the size of the polygamist union (I suggest 5 as a trial run). Love is powerful enough to include more than just two people, right? The reason behind number 2 is to prevent genetic faults, since closely related people most likely share the same recessive genetic faults. If we require all those in the incestuous union to be made sterile, that portion goes away and there is no longer any legitimate reason to deny them.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?

No one is stopping those other groups from presenting their legal arguments.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
The argument is that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are different, and that this difference makes them unequal to society and therefore it is not discrimination to treat them unequally.

Society does not grant special BFF licenses for the same reason it does not grant marriages to same-sex partners.

It's a social construct

Biology determines they are different sure. But society as part of defining the social construct that is marriage determines that difference is not unequal.

Biology again has literally nothing to do with defining a social construct unless someone makes a choice that it does.

You and opponents of same sex marriage are making a choice to limit a social construct because of differences in biology.

Supporters are acknowledging the biological differences and making a choice to treat it equal as part of the social construct that is marriage.

That's really all there is to it.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
some people are just to dense. or in denial to be able to understand the difference between a traditional marriage, and a gay marriage.

Some people are too dense to understand treating the differences unequal is a choice.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No one is stopping those other groups from presenting their legal arguments.

That is not what I asked. Care to actually answer the question you quoted? I will repost it to make it easy on you.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?



EDIT: For example, the civil rights movement did not deny equal rights to Asians and only give them to Blacks. Why is this "equal rights" movement purposefully NOT trying to give equal rights to groups other than homosexuals? Equal is not very equal when it purposefully only advances one group while ensuring other groups are still denied equality.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
That is not what I asked. Care to actually answer the question you quoted? I will repost it to make it easy on you.

So I ask, why are we purposefully denying rights to some people while fighting to give rights to one select group of people? Why is the homosexual group more important or more special to deserve these rights while denying them to other groups?

EDIT: For example, the civil rights movement did not deny equal rights to Asians and only give them to Blacks. Why is this "equal rights" movement purposefully NOT trying to give equal rights to groups other than homosexuals? Equal is not very equal when it purposefully only advances one group while ensuring other groups are still denied equality.

You are free to avail yourself of the legal system to pursue your desire for the rights of more citizens.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You are free to avail yourself of the legal system to pursue your desire for the rights of more citizens.

Ah, you are just trolling. I understand.

At least I hope you are just trolling, otherwise you would have said that Asians should have fought their own civil rights battle when the Blacks fought theirs. That is so stupid I suspect you HAVE to be trolling.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
I agree different is different.

Where I disagree is difference is unequal. Sorry your making the choice that it is.

If the groups are different why shouldn't they be treated differently?

government does that all the time.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
Redacted my initial response.

Would you answer your own question: Why would a man care to enter into an agreement to give his possessions to a woman if he died?

So that the children he fathered with her don't starve.

Although interestingly you appear to have missed the inherent flaw in your own argument.

If marriage is about inheritance should poor people be prohibited from marrying? :colbert:
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
If the groups are different why shouldn't they be treated differently?

government does that all the time.

The question isn't whether they are different the question is whether the difference should be considered unequal.

Again marriage is a SOCIAL construct not biological. So society gets to make or change the rules whenever it wants.

It's a simple choice
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
It's a social construct

Biology determines they are different sure. But society as part of defining the social construct that is marriage determines that difference is not unequal.

Marriage is a social construct based on the biological reality of human reproduction.

Biology again has literally nothing to do with defining a social construct unless someone makes a choice that it does.

You and opponents of same sex marriage are making a choice to limit a social construct because of differences in biology.

Supporters are acknowledging the biological differences and making a choice to treat it equal as part of the social construct that is marriage.

That's really all there is to it.

You appear to be reiterating what I said earlier:

I think the problem is that liberals(and some conservatives *cough* Newt Gingrich *cough*) really do not believe in marriage. What they want is government sanctioned temporary sex partners (GSTSP). They then co-opted the name marriage to refer to their new union.

You want to create a union that is entirely different than marriage and then assign it the same rights.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Marriage is a social construct based on the biological reality of human reproduction.



You appear to be reiterating what I said earlier:



You want to create a union that is entirely different than marriage and then assign it the same rights.

You want to treat biological differences unequal. It's a choice your making.

That's it
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
So that the children he fathered with her don't starve.

Although interestingly you appear to have missed the inherent flaw in your own argument.

If marriage is about inheritance should poor people be prohibited from marrying? :colbert:

What children?

Since in your definition children do not exist prior to a marriage, how do you guarantee that children will exist and how is that an influence on how marriage is defined?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
This would be acceptable if the Federal recognition and tax and family privileges that are today reserved for heterosexual marriages were instead given to people in civil unions regardless of whether the couple was heterosexual or homosexual, rather than just heterosexual marriages.

Churches could then sanctify any civil union they chose to in matrimony as well. but a marriage without a civil union would not get the Federal benefits. This would also encourage a further separation of Church and state.

Good idea!

Exactly, this is precisely what I said in one of my posts above. Gov should care less if a couple is married or not, they should just care if the couple has a valid civil union or not. Society can hash out what marriage means, Gov shouldn't even be in that arguement.

Chuck
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Exactly, this is precisely what I said in one of my posts above. Gov should care less if a couple is married or not, they should just care if the couple has a valid civil union or not. Society can hash out what marriage means, Gov shouldn't even be in that arguement.

Chuck

As I just said in the other thread on this subject, as long as you guys take the blame and it isn't heaped on gay people with slanders of them "destroying marriage", have at it.
 

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
As I just said in the other thread on this subject, as long as you guys take the blame and it isn't heaped on gay people with slanders of them "destroying marriage", have at it.

Exactly the only thing gay marriage opponents can argue is why they are choosing to treat biological differences unequal in a social construct.

As a supporter I just have to choose to not treat the differences unequal.

No other arguments are relative all they impact is why one is making the choice they are.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
You're never letting go of your terrible analogy, eh? Just from a communication standpoint, you should try something else because you've been beating the mud drum over and over and it's still not making your point. The only value I've found in it is that the way you keep using it reminds me that water and earth used to be considered elements. Now we define elements as the atomic foundations of all matter. The meaning of the word changed because we learned new information.

The same is happening here. The meaning of marriage is changing because we now understand that two men or two women can also have a life-long relationship that is a family, can raise children, and be just as useful as members of a community as any other marriage unit.

Why does the biology aspect matter to the law?

Heck, why does it matter to you?


And I used to sound the civil union horn just as you are now, but the reality is that the word marriage is an established legal word. Changing it to anything else does one thing: makes idiots hate gay people more because they "ruined the word marriage for everyone".

Oh the outcries of the oppressed majority will be so loud! 'Wahhhhh! Those gay people made it so I can't get married! Now I have to join an union! Wahhhh!'

Marriage is the accepted word. It will not include gay couples under its purview. This is not a perversion of language, it is its evolution due to exanded understanding.

So again, to use your phrase: Tough shit, buddy. Gay couples have every right to be married, not some lesser or other thing. And they're not ruining anyone else's marriage in the process.

You literally just conceeded defeat with this post. You basically said: Haha we've been able to pervert enough peoples mind, that makes it right, deal with it!

It's not often one would use the 'no interracial marriage allowed' logic to make the same argument for gay unions, but that's essentially what you just did...if enough people can think it, it must be true so make it so. Yikes...

Chuck
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
You literally just conceeded defeat with this post. You basically said: Haha we've been able to pervert enough peoples mind, that makes it right, deal with it!

It's not often one would use the 'no interracial marriage allowed' logic to make the same argument for gay unions, but that's essentially what you just did...if enough people can think it, it must be true so make it so. Yikes...

Chuck

Well, I failed to convey my actual message and you've ascribed a new one to me. I'd ask you to please not do the latter and merely ask me to clarify... but you're trying to "win" something here (because you've already lost the word)... so have a good one.