Who should be allowed to marry?

[zsdersw]

I am pretty sure that a contract that is "consented" to under violent coercion is not considered valid. So if marriage is just a legal contract a shotgun marriage is not a valid marriage.

Of course it's not considered valid here, but that's a Western society thing. If you're going to bring in the rest of the world when it suits your argument you can't throw it out when it doesn't suit it.

Its "consent" in the same way a trained parrot is consenting to marriage if it says yes.

No it's not. Again... animals and objects cannot give consent, either by coercion or informed choice.

 

[zsdersw]

Nice backtrack

Problem is you are on record as saying that the consent of the families counts as consent.

I didn't say the families are the only consent that's required. Consent is required by all participants.

 

[zsdersw]

You're not going to win, nehalem. You're 100% wrong on this issue and your opinion on it is getting less and less relevant as the years go by.

Same-sex marriage will happen across the US... it is only a matter of time. I'm glad that you're powerless to stop it.

 

[nixium]

I didn't read all the 10 pages of bickering before this.

Looking at it from two angles:

1. Societal - anyone can marry anyone as long as approved by their church/temple/jedi club/whatever. Any such organization has the right to refuse marriage to the requestors, and cannot be forced to accept unions they find unacceptable. Note that any approved marriages confer no legal rights whatsoever to the "married" parties.

2. Government - Create 'marriage' contracts between any two people, with a legal set of benefits conferred. Absolutely no tax benefit for 'married' people, but hospital visitation rights etc. Extensible to multiple-partner arrangements, depending on actual set of benefits offered. Tax benefits only for raising children, regardless of genders of the couple thus formed.

 

[PrinceofWands]

If you oppose marriage does it make sense to argue for expanding the definition of marriage?

Yes, since compromise is regrettably the nature of governance. Also lets be clear: I'm not opposed to marriage, I'm opposed to government being INVOLVED in marriage. I'm all for marriage.

Everyone has the right to marry a single person of the opposite sex. You do not have the right to "marry" someone of the same sex, animals, corporations, toasters because that is not marriage.

Your redefinition of marriage is irrational. You are saying we should redefine marriage to cater to one specific minority sexual orientation, but will still discriminate against other ones. This is neither rational nor just.

Bull fucking shit. Marriage is religious and religion cannot grant rights. In fact, NOTHING grants rights but life itself, but I'm sure you take my general meaning.

IF people have a right to seek the religious institution of marriage (as we know it today) then they MUST also have the right to seek similar religious institutions from alternative religions to include gay marriage, polyandry, etc. Anything else becomes a violation of the 1st Amendment by restricting religious expression.

The rest of your 'examples' are such ignorant, pitiable bullshit that I won't waste time on them.

I said no such thing...in fact, what I said is the ONLY response that DOESN'T cater to one specific group. It's the ONLY rational, totally equal system being proposed. It discriminates against no one. The existing system IS biased and exclusionary however.

In fact, the rest of what you say is such ignorant, worthless, bigoted, scared bullshit that I'll no longer waste column space on a fucktard wise and beautiful woman like you. I hope you fucking die horribly because that's EXACTLY what twats like you deserve. YOU are a perfect example of everything fucking wrong with the world.

If you ever get cancer be sure and let me know. I'd like to come eat popcorn and watch you waste away to nothing enough to match your mind and soul.

 

[nehalem256]

Of course it's not considered valid here, but that's a Western society thing. If you're going to bring in the rest of the world when it suits your argument you can't throw it out when it doesn't suit it.

I don't think anyone has ever considered an arranged marriage to not be marriage. People may have thought that such marriages should not occur, but they are still implicitly considering them to be marriage.

No it's not. Again... animals and objects cannot give consent, either by coercion or informed choice.

A parrot can give consent if properly trained. And it would seem to be as valid is your "consent" by coercion.

 

[nehalem256]

Bull fucking shit. Marriage is religious and religion cannot grant rights. In fact, NOTHING grants rights but life itself, but I'm sure you take my general meaning.

Marriage is not religious. See Japan, which also does not recognize same-sex marriage despite clearly not being a Christian theocracy.

IF people have a right to seek the religious institution of marriage (as we know it today) then they MUST also have the right to seek similar religious institutions from alternative religions to include gay marriage, polyandry, etc. Anything else becomes a violation of the 1st Amendment by restricting religious expression.

The rest of your 'examples' are such ignorant, pitiable bullshit that I won't waste time on them.

I said no such thing...in fact, what I said is the ONLY response that DOESN'T cater to one specific group. It's the ONLY rational, totally equal system being proposed. It discriminates against no one. The existing system IS biased and exclusionary however.

In fact, the rest of what you say is such ignorant, worthless, bigoted, scared bullshit that I'll no longer waste column space on a fucktard wise and beautiful woman like you. I hope you fucking die horribly because that's EXACTLY what twats like you deserve. YOU are a perfect example of everything fucking wrong with the world.

If you ever get cancer be sure and let me know. I'd like to come eat popcorn and watch you waste away to nothing enough to match your mind and soul.

Awesome display of tolerance :thumbsup:

 

[poohbear]

U started a discussion without even outlining the purpose of marriage. Why do ppl get married? What is the point of it? Answer that question then u can ask the next question.

 

[nixium]

I don't think anyone has ever considered an arranged marriage to not be marriage. People may have thought that such marriages should not occur, but they are still implicitly considering them to be marriage.



A parrot can give consent if properly trained. And it would seem to be as valid is your "consent" by coercion.

You're not making sense. If the church of Nehalem considers man-parrot marriages to be right, go ahead and bless it.

Why should the Government provide any benefits for such coupling? How would it, even if it wanted to? Should the parrot be granted hospital visitation rights and access to medical recrods? Can the parrot inherit his estate or be the beneficiary of any insurance claims in the event of the man's death? Would the parrot's testimony regarding abuse, such as the forced learning of slang, be admissible in any divorce proceedings? If so, can the parrot get the house and sole custody of any children? Since the man keeps the parrot in the cage, can the parrot file a charge of indentured servitude against its husband?

 

[nehalem256]

2. Government - Create 'marriage' contracts between any two people, with a legal set of benefits conferred. Absolutely no tax benefit for 'married' people, but hospital visitation rights etc. Extensible to multiple-partner arrangements, depending on actual set of benefits offered. Tax benefits only for raising children, regardless of genders of the couple thus formed.

The fact that you think marriage exists so people can visit each other in the hospital has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Not only is it silly, but there are much better ways to solve the problem, like letting people have whoever they want (within reason) visit them in the hospital.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't think anyone has ever considered an arranged marriage to not be marriage. People may have thought that such marriages should not occur, but they are still implicitly considering them to be marriage.

Marriages done by violent coercion are what is not considered valid in Western societies. I'm not talking about arranged marriages.

A parrot can give consent if properly trained. And it would seem to be as valid is your "consent" by coercion.

Training a parrot is different than consent by violent coercion.

 

[nehalem256]

You're not making sense. If the church of Nehalem considers man-parrot marriages to be right, go ahead and bless it.

Why should the Government provide any benefits for such coupling? How would it, even if it wanted to? Should the parrot be granted hospital visitation rights and access to medical recrods?

Yes, apparently marriage exists so people can visit each other in the hospital

Can the parrot inherit his estate or be the beneficiary of any insurance claims in the event of the man's death?

Yes. See earlier where I outlined Pet Trusts.

Would the parrot's testimony regarding abuse, such as the forced learning of slang, be admissible in any divorce proceedings?

Ever hear of animal abuse? I assume it would be up to a judge to decide if the parrots testimony was believable or not.

If so, can the parrot get the house and sole custody of any children?

Parrots cannot raise children, but could presumably get the house.

Since the man keeps the parrot in the cage, can the parrot file a charge of indentured servitude against its husband?

You don't keep your servants in a cage

 

[nixium]

The fact that you think marriage exists so people can visit each other in the hospital has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Not only is it silly, but there are much better ways to solve the problem, like letting people have whoever they want (within reason) visit them in the hospital.

You're conflating Goverment/legal and societal reasons for marriage.

For societal reasons, marriage can be anything you want. Whether based on love, a grab for power, arranged, truly experiencing your parrots love, blah blah blah whatever.

As far as the Government goes, it should solely be about conferring certain rights on a designated partner. That includes hospital visits, medical records, inheritance, etc.

 

[nixium]

Yes, apparently marriage exists so people can visit each other in the hospital



Yes. See earlier where I outlined Pet Trusts.



Ever hear of animal abuse? I assume it would be up to a judge to decide if the parrots testimony was believable or not.



Parrots cannot raise children, but could presumably get the house.



You don't keep your servants in a cage

Parrots are not persons, and so cannot get the rights and legal resources available to persons. We already have animal abuse laws (as you pointed out) covering them.

Why should that be changed?

My bad - not indentured servitude, involuntary confinement.

 

[Retro Rob]

The fact that you think marriage exists so people can visit each other in the hospital has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Not only is it silly, but there are much better ways to solve the problem, like letting people have whoever they want (within reason) visit them in the hospital.

Well, the only reason why homosexuals want to be "married" and not "civil unioned" is because of the benefits associated with it, or this wouldn't be an issue probably at all.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Marriage is not religious. See Japan, which also does not recognize same-sex marriage despite clearly not being a Christian theocracy.



Awesome display of tolerance :thumbsup:

I have no tolerance for evil or ignorance, and neither should any decent human being.

 

[nixium]

Well, the only reason why homosexuals want to be "married" and not "civil unioned" is because of the benefits associated with it, or this wouldn't be an issue probably at all.

Even if civil unions were exactly equal to marriage, the complaint would be why have two terms doing the same thing.

So call it all marriage or all civil unions.

I don't give a fuck either way, as long as the legal rights are the same.

 

[Retro Rob]

Even if civil unions were exactly equal to marriage, the complaint would be why have two terms doing the same thing.

So call it all marriage or all civil unions.

I don't give a fuck either way, as long as the legal rights are the same.

I don't care either, however, I say that to point out that this isn't an "equal rights" issue like they're making it out to be...

I am in agreement with Nehalem's point all along - they are trying to force people to recognize their relationships or "marriages". Equal rights is only a smoke-screen.

That being said, under this government, whoever wants to marry can be married if it's legal. They just need to tell the truth and admit that all they care about are the benefits (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation and so on).

Also, I've heard the "stable relationships" argument too. I am certain that if there were as many SS couples married as there are Hetero couples married, the divorce rate would still be high but split between both evenly.

SSM being legal in the entire US would be "new", so we'd expect that something new would flourish for a while until it become part of normality and people get bored with it.

It's an endless cycle....

 

[zsdersw]

I don't care either, however, I say that to point out that this isn't an "equal rights" issue like they're making it out to be...

I am in agreement with Nehalem's point all along - they are trying to force people to recognize their relationships or "marriages". Equal rights is only a smoke-screen.

That being said, under this government, whoever wants to marry can be married if it's legal. They just need to tell the truth and admit that all they care about are the benefits (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation and so on).

Also, I've heard the "stable relationships" argument too. I am certain that if there were as many SS couples married as there are Hetero couples married, the divorce rate would still be high but split between both evenly.

SSM being legal in the entire US would be "new", so we'd expect that something new would flourish for a while until it become part of normality and people get bored with it.

It's an endless cycle....

No one can force "people" to do anything of the sort. Government and law != "people"

 

[cybrsage]

Even if civil unions were exactly equal to marriage, the complaint would be why have two terms doing the same thing.

So call it all marriage or all civil unions.

I don't give a fuck either way, as long as the legal rights are the same.

The entire debate can end if they change them all to civil unions. Right now the fight is over the religious institution of marriage (which existed before the US became a country). Remove that part by using civil union for all unions instead of marriage, and only the extremist haters on both sides of the issue will remain against it.

 

[nixium]

I don't care either, however, I say that to point out that this isn't an "equal rights" issue like they're making it out to be...

I am in agreement with Nehalem's point all along - they are trying to force people to recognize their relationships or "marriages". Equal rights is only a smoke-screen.

That being said, under this government, whoever wants to marry can be married if it's legal. They just need to tell the truth and admit that all they care about are the benefits (tax, inheritance, hospital visitation and so on).

Also, I've heard the "stable relationships" argument too. I am certain that if there were as many SS couples married as there are Hetero couples married, the divorce rate would still be high but split between both evenly.

SSM being legal in the entire US would be "new", so we'd expect that something new would flourish for a while until it become part of normality and people get bored with it.

It's an endless cycle....

No, it's the other way around.

People like nehalem are conflating legal and societal reasons for marriage. If they were only concerned about social acceptance being forced down their throats, why oppose Government recognition/granting of these rights?

They are free to consider these marriages illegitimate, no one is asking them to. It's about what rights are allowed under law to homosexual couples.

They're unable to resolve this conflation, instead grasping at the most imbecilic arguments to try and enforce their biases legally. Take nehalem here who's trying to use marriage with parrots as a slippery slope argument. Seriously?

 

[nixium]

The entire debate can end if they change them all to civil unions. Right now the fight is over the religious institution of marriage (which existed before the US became a country). Remove that part by using civil union for all unions instead of marriage, and only the extremist haters on both sides of the issue will remain against it.

Or just call them all marriages - what's in a name?

Waste of taxpayer money to change it all over the place.

And given the current government's spending habits (right/left/doesn't matter), somehow the word change will end up costing several trillion $$.

 

[cybrsage]

Or just call them all marriages - what's in a name?

Waste of taxpayer money to change it all over the place.

And given the current government's spending habits (right/left/doesn't matter), somehow the word change will end up costing several trillion $$.

The name is what the fight is over. Marriage has been a religious institution LONG before the US government came into existence. The legal institution was put in place to give legal powers to the religious institution and that should never have been done.

Rather than making a wrong even worse, they should stop the wrong altogether.


Basically, words can be powerful, which is why the entire battle is over a word.

EDIT: We can end the fight immediately and grant new rights to new groups of people easily if we simply stop using the word marriage and make them all civil unions. The fight over the word is delaying this.

 

[nehalem256]

No, it's the other way around.

People like nehalem are conflating legal and societal reasons for marriage. If they were only concerned about social acceptance being forced down their throats, why oppose Government recognition/granting of these rights?

They are free to consider these marriages illegitimate, no one is asking them to. It's about what rights are allowed under law to homosexual couples.

Government is an agent of society. Government recognition of homosexual relationships is about society accepting homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual relationships.

This is false. Heterosexual relationships are more important to society.

They're unable to resolve this conflation, instead grasping at the most imbecilic arguments to try and enforce their biases legally. Take nehalem here who's trying to use marriage with parrots as a slippery slope argument. Seriously?

Every argument used in favor of same-sex marriage can also be used in favor of human-parrot marriage. The only difference is that you don't have a problem with bestial-sexual bigotry.

If marriage cannot discriminate against sexual minorities than how can you oppose such a redefinition of marriage?

And as for imbecilic arguments why don't we talk about the same-sex marriage supporters who believe that citizenship status is important for marriage, or that 2 men can procreate together.

 

[cybrsage]

Every argument used in favor of same-sex marriage can also be used in favor of human-parrot marriage.

Parrots do not possess the mental acuity to become a party to a legal document. Same reason why there is a lower age limit on humans getting married.