RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,895
Posts: 5,476,846
Members: 25,050
Currently online: 476
Newest member: aloraptor

TrekToday headlines

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 13 2013, 01:45 PM   #331
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Professor Zoom wrote: View Post
Are gay rights LESS than those of blacks and latinos? Because it feels like people are making excuses...
I think the concept of marriage means so many different things to so many people that it doesn't even count as a rights issue. I believe that gays have the same basic rights as every other human being. I just don't think any human particularly has the moral right to be married. The very concept of marriage strikes me as unbalanced and unfair in regard to the society at large. It's a government bonus for good behaviour.

Human beings have the right to be safe, the right to privacy and the right to freedom but they don't have the right to be married. It's a privilege, not a right.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 01:56 PM   #332
Nagisa Furukawa
Commander
 
Nagisa Furukawa's Avatar
 
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
I think the concept of marriage means so many different things to so many people that it doesn't even count as a rights issue. I believe that gays have the same basic rights as every other human being. I just don't think any human particularly has the moral right to be married. The very concept of marriage strikes me as unbalanced and unfair in regard to the society at large. It's a government bonus for good behaviour.

Human beings have the right to be safe, the right to privacy and the right to freedom but they don't have the right to be married. It's a privilege, not a right.
A ridiculously unfair one. Nothing is actually happening when two people say they're married; it's people in a romantic relationship having a hullabaloo ritual/ceremony and then suddenly be given new titles. And yet by doing that, they get privileges and benefits others don't have in terms of taxes, insurance, hospital rights, and tons of other things that are completely and utterly unfair to give to two people just because they're living together and are romantic as opposed to living together and are platonic or indeed, are living together and are romantic but haven't done the silly ceremony or given themselves new titles to describe the person they're in a relationship with.

I have absolutely no problem with any group of people, gay, straight, two, more than two, who want to go through a ceremony and suddenly declare themselves "married." I absolutely do have a problem with the government recognizing it and therefore, treating them differently to non-married people. If these insane privileges weren't given out, there wouldn't be a gay marriage because any gay couple could have their own ceremony, declare themselves married and no one would give a shit. It only matters because the government genuinely treats marriage as a more beneficial status quo than non-marriage. Sickening.
__________________
I am the one who guided you this far.
Nagisa Furukawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 01:57 PM   #333
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
I believe that gays have the same basic rights as every other human being.
Nonsense. Maybe you don't think marriage should involve government benefits, but it does, it always will, and it's not just about the government rewarding "good behavior." So no, gays don't have the same basic rights as everyone else, and I'm not even bringing up issues not purely involving marriage such as hospital visitation, adoption, etc.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States
It's very convenient to decide that government shouldn't have a role in marriage only at the moment that another group wants equal access to it and the benefits it brings.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:00 PM   #334
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It's very convenient to decide that government shouldn't have a role in marriage only at the moment that another group wants equal access to it and the benefits it brings.
Gays have been wanting the right to marry since before I was even born. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nagisa Furukawa wrote: View Post
I have absolutely no problem with any group of people, gay, straight, two, more than two, who want to go through a ceremony and suddenly declare themselves "married." I absolutely do have a problem with the government recognizing it and therefore, treating them differently to non-married people.
Yup. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it, it's not a legal issue. Gays wouldn't even have acted like this in the first place if straight couples didn't get an elitist privilege. I do think a better move towards equality would be for the government's involvement in marriage to be abolished, rather than gays getting a "right" that should never have been around in the first place. Gay marriage is in no way a "progressive" outlook, it's archaic. It's further contributing to the most conservative ideology possible regarding human relationships.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:02 PM   #335
Lt. Uhura-Brown
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Zealand
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

I feel that marriage is more than just government "bonus".

What about hospital visitation rights and other next-of-kin issues?

Being able to legally declare someone as a life partner as opposed to "random stranger X" should be a right?
Lt. Uhura-Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:04 PM   #336
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It's very convenient to decide that government shouldn't have a role in marriage only at the moment that another group wants equal access to it and the benefits it brings.
Gays have been wanting the right to marry since before I was even born. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Typical DancingJim sidestep instead of addressing the point.

Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:06 PM   #337
Nagisa Furukawa
Commander
 
Nagisa Furukawa's Avatar
 
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
Nonsense. Maybe you don't think marriage should involve government benefits, but it does, it always will, and it's not just about the government rewarding "good behavior."
It's a bit early to say it "always will," I'd say.

So no, gays don't have the same basic rights as everyone else, and I'm not even bringing up issues not purely involving marriage such as hospital visitation, adoption, etc.
Well, it's hardly the "same basic rights as everyone else" if non-married people don't get the same hospital visitation, adoption, etc. rights, is it?

It's very convenient to decide that government shouldn't have a role in marriage only at the moment that another group wants equal access to it and the benefits it brings.
Oh, nonsense, this is a basic libertarian, the-government-shouldn't-be-involved-in-private-life view. Try not to see ulterior, suspicious motives around every corner. I have the exact same views on the government and marriage, have had since I was 15, and am bi-sexual. For myself, and I believe DalekJim (though I'm not a telepath so maybe he's fooling me too!), our opinion on this issue is not some "convenient" front to hide us trying to prevent another group from equal access.
__________________
I am the one who guided you this far.
Nagisa Furukawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:11 PM   #338
Nagisa Furukawa
Commander
 
Nagisa Furukawa's Avatar
 
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Lt. Uhura-Brown wrote: View Post
I feel that marriage is more than just government "bonus".

What about hospital visitation rights and other next-of-kin issues?

Being able to legally declare someone as a life partner as opposed to "random stranger X" should be a right?
But that's exactly what we're discussing, when we mention government giving "bonuses" to people married as opposed to non-married people. I think hospital visitation rights should be a case-to-case basis and should be able to set up an arrangement with the hospital that when sick, I can be visited by whomever I want, whether it be my platonic best friend or my favorite uncle who raised me like a father or indeed, a boyfriend or a girlfriend. Getting married shouldn't give you privileges and benefits that single and romantic-but-not-married people don't have. It's a ceremony and a title exchange; it's not the government's business.
__________________
I am the one who guided you this far.
Nagisa Furukawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:14 PM   #339
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

The homophobia claim was typical liberal rhetoric. As if I'd be cool with gays fucking eachother in the streets (As I see sex as something else the government should stay out of!), yet want to deny them the right of marriage just to spite them.

Absolutely ridiculous assertion.

Nagisa Furukawa wrote: View Post
Oh, nonsense, this is a basic libertarian, the-government-shouldn't-be-involved-in-private-life view. Try not to see ulterior, suspicious motives around every corner.
Obama's legacy .
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:16 PM   #340
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

It was your doppelganger DJ who brought up the erroneous claim that gays have the same rights as everyone else, and I was quoting him before bringing up other issues.

DalekJim wrote: View Post
The homophobia claim was typical liberal rhetoric.
Oh, this is a treat. We get to observe the One Trick Pony here in its natural habitat of the message board. Notice his repetitive high-pitched whine about liberals, and the way he cowers behind the stronger male of the herd and lets him deal with trouble.

Who said anything about homophobia? I was talking more about the selfishness of deciding that marriage should not involve government now when it has done so for more than a century. How is that fair to the last major group denied its benefits?

Last edited by Locutus of Bored; July 13 2013 at 02:27 PM.
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:24 PM   #341
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

It wasn't an erroneous claim because what constitutes a human's "right" is a completely subjective term. I think people should have the right to be protected by the government from violent crime, or that they have the right not to be spied on. I don't think they have the right to get legal bonuses for finding a girlfriend or boyfriend. It's basic libertarian philosophy of a small government having input only on important matters, not trivial stuff.

I don't see gay marriage as an important matter. In fact, it's frequently used in America as a debate point by the Democrats and Republicans merely to disguise the fact that both parties are almost identical and wish to rule the country in the same way.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:29 PM   #342
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It's very convenient to decide that government shouldn't have a role in marriage only at the moment that another group wants equal access to it and the benefits it brings.
Gays have been wanting the right to marry since before I was even born. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Nagisa Furukawa wrote: View Post
I have absolutely no problem with any group of people, gay, straight, two, more than two, who want to go through a ceremony and suddenly declare themselves "married." I absolutely do have a problem with the government recognizing it and therefore, treating them differently to non-married people.
Yup. The government should have absolutely nothing to do with it, it's not a legal issue. Gays wouldn't even have acted like this in the first place if straight couples didn't get an elitist privilege. I do think a better move towards equality would be for the government's involvement in marriage to be abolished, rather than gays getting a "right" that should never have been around in the first place. Gay marriage is in no way a "progressive" outlook, it's archaic. It's further contributing to the most conservative ideology possible regarding human relationships.
My belief is the exact opposite. Marriage should be a legal Institution, that everyone is treated the same with, it's religion that should get out of that Legal Institution. Religion can of course perform ceremonies for anyone that wants their marriage ratified before God, but it's on top of a Legal proceeding, not instead of (And they can deny Gays that privilege, all they like, there's always another Church that will do it), but, that shouldn't count towards the legal marriage, which provides you with inheritance rights (not Privilege, but Right), hospital visitation Rights and care determination Rights during tragedies (Again, not Privileges, but Rights), as well as the privileges of Tax Benefits, if they are given to any marriage.

People have lost their homes when their partner died, because their union wasn't seen as legitimate. People have been denied seeing their partner in the hospital dying because only "Family" was allowed to see them, and a Gay union isn't accepted as family, people have been denied the right to determine care for their Gay "Spouse". That's what I care about on the marriage end, most of the privileges, I'm not so worried about, but, if others get them, Gays should too.
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:38 PM   #343
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Sindatur wrote: View Post
My belief is the exact opposite. Marriage should be a legal Institution, that everyone is treated the same with
I think the definition of marriage means this never going to be the case. Marriage is about two people signing a contract to gain more rights than people who aint signed it. It is never going to be an institution about equality.

People have lost their homes when their partner died, because their union wasn't seen as legitimate. People have been denied seeing their partner in the hospital dying because only "Family" was allowed to see them, and a Gay union isn't accepted as family, people have been denied the right to determine care for their Gay "Spouse". That's what I care about on the marriage end
This happens to absolutely everybody that isn't married though. I don't see how a select few signing up for a government scheme makes it fairer, I firmly believe the opposite. It just causes unbalance. I think if the concept of legal marriage bonuses didn't exist, the gay community would have been a lot happier. It is only seeing straights enjoy them that has built up the resentment, so imagine how people like me, who don't agree with the legal definition of marriage, feel.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:40 PM   #344
Nagisa Furukawa
Commander
 
Nagisa Furukawa's Avatar
 
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Sindatur wrote: View Post
that shouldn't count towards the legal marriage, which provides you with inheritance rights (not Privilege, but Right), hospital visitation Rights and care determination Rights during tragedies (Again, not Privileges, but Rights), as well as the privileges of Tax Benefits, if they are given to any marriage.
How are these Rights, not Privileges, if only married people can have them...? If hospital visitation is truly a "Right," then anyone who wishes to see their (romantic OR platonic) loved one should be allowed, not just the people who had a ceremony, gay or straight.

People have lost their homes when their partner died, because their union wasn't seen as legitimate. People have been denied seeing their partner in the hospital dying because only "Family" was allowed to see them, and a Gay union isn't accepted as family, people have been denied the right to determine care for their Gay "Spouse". That's what I care about on the marriage end, most of the privileges, I'm not so worried about, but, if others get them, Gays should too.
So if a person loses their home when their partner, gay or straight but NOT married, dies, is that any less tragic? If I'm denied to see my partner in the hospital because we weren't married, is THAT okay?

That's why I don't think it should be a "legal institution" in any way shape or form. ANYONE being denied to keep their home or turned away to see the person they love while dying because the government couldn't keep their nose out of romantic relations bothers me. That goes for married gay people and that goes for non-married straight couples and that goes for platonic friendships.
__________________
I am the one who guided you this far.
Nagisa Furukawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 02:59 PM   #345
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

I'm ashamed to say that I use to have the "government shouldn't be in the marriage business" philosophy. But then I thought " why the fuck do I really care if two grown people enter into a contract with each other"? Which is all marriage is, a contract.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.