RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,377
Posts: 5,504,572
Members: 25,125
Currently online: 610
Newest member: Ted Dave

TrekToday headlines

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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, 05:46 PM   #391
Professor Zoom
Vice Admiral
 
Professor Zoom's Avatar
 
Location: Idealistic
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post

I believe that two wrongs don't make a right, and that the idea of gay marriage only shines a light on how outdated the concept of marriage truly is. Marriage as it is primarily exists is a breeding program, with the benefits being something to lure people in to it.


You don't need to be married to "breed."

And, with all due respect, you don't understand the reality of being married and the reality of being in a long term relationship.

Having children is a small aspect of why to get married.


Without the breeding aspect, I think it becomes utterly irrelevant, elitist, and absurd. The majority of new marriages end in divorce, as the concept is wholey outdated as it stands.
Again, you use the world elitist.

I'm curious. What right or privilege that exists for married couples would you like to take advantage of?
__________________
Batman does not eat nachos.
Professor Zoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:48 PM   #392
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

BillJ wrote: View Post
Seriously, try to see a big picture for once in your life. Divorce is as important to the process of marriage as saying "I do".
If marriage wasn't a legal institution then divorce obviously wouldn't be either for fuck's sake. I mean... I thought that kinda went without saying? If two people aren't legally bound, then they won't need to be legally separated.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:49 PM   #393
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
Those have Government enforcement, you want Government out of the Contract
The government would treat the seperating couple like they were two un-married people, without special favour. I don't understand where the confusion lies.
You took Government out of it, therefore the Government doesn't treat you like anything, it's only between the two of you
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:51 PM   #394
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Sindatur wrote: View Post
You took Government out of it, therefore the Government doesn't treat you like anything, it's only between the two of you
What? If people aren't married, then they still have ways of dividing up custody of their children and possessions through legal channels.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:52 PM   #395
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post

If marriage wasn't a legal institution then divorce obviously wouldn't be either for fuck's sake. I mean... I thought that kinda went without saying? If two people aren't legally bound, then they won't need to be legally separated.


Once two people start living together they become legally entangled, more so if children and assets are involved. There still has to be laws that allow for the dissolution of that coupling.

So what does it matter it those laws are under the header of "marriage"?

I really do think this hit it right on the nose...

BillJ wrote:
Here is how I see it: you tap dance because you don't believe homosexuals deserve the same treatment under current laws. You obfuscate because you know there's absolutely no chance that current marriage laws will ever be repealed.

So you can claim to take the moral high-ground while being comfortable in the knowledge that some people are denied rights that are available to others.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:54 PM   #396
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Seriously, try to see a big picture for once in your life. Divorce is as important to the process of marriage as saying "I do".
If marriage wasn't a legal institution then divorce obviously wouldn't be either for fuck's sake. I mean... I thought that kinda went without saying? If two people aren't legally bound, then they won't need to be legally separated.
So, then the tougher party just kicks the crap out of the weaker party and takes what they want? Again, you took Government out of it, so, if you want to support your idea, you can't look to Government.

If you look to Government, I ask again, if you take out the tax benefits, and anyone can marry, then what is different about your Government Backed Contract of Union and the Government backed Contract currently called marriage?
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:55 PM   #397
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

BillJ wrote: View Post
There still has to be laws that allow for the dissolution of that coupling.
Well, here we come to our core philosophical difference. I don't think the government should handle the joining and dissolution of sexual partners. I don't see why there has to be a law there. Have laws for child custody, for property ownership, for whatever other issue you'd LIKELY name but don't get involved with the union and dissolution of couples. That's what I'd like.

I really do think this hit it right on the nose...
Well, I think you've been paying absolutely zero attention if you feel that way and I see no reason to engage you in further discussion if you're just going to sling irrelevant abuse and allegations my way.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:55 PM   #398
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
You took Government out of it, therefore the Government doesn't treat you like anything, it's only between the two of you
What? If people aren't married, then they still have ways of dividing up custody of their children and possessions through legal channels.
Legal channels are Government, you took Government out of it
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:55 PM   #399
Professor Zoom
Vice Admiral
 
Professor Zoom's Avatar
 
Location: Idealistic
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Sindatur wrote: View Post
You took Government out of it, therefore the Government doesn't treat you like anything, it's only between the two of you
What? If people aren't married, then they still have ways of dividing up custody of their children and possessions through legal channels.
You mean like the government?
__________________
Batman does not eat nachos.
Professor Zoom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:56 PM   #400
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
There still has to be laws that allow for the dissolution of that coupling.
Well, here we come to our core philosophical difference. I don't think the government should handle the joining and dissolution of sexual partners. I don't see why there "has to be a law there.
Which shows how little you really know. Marriage is about far more than "sexual partners".
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:56 PM   #401
Yuletide Caroler
Rear Admiral
 
Yuletide Caroler's Avatar
 
Location: A ship of Ancient Mariner's festive imagination.
View Yuletide Caroler's Twitter Profile
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
What? If people aren't married, then they still have ways of dividing up custody of their children and possessions through legal channels.
Legal. You mean, as in, laws? From whom do these laws come?
__________________
Yuletide Caroler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 05:57 PM   #402
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
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." 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.

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.
not all arguments that say that there's a reason that heterosexual marriage should be privileged by the government are incoherent, hypocritical, or based on prejudice. You could say that the whole REASON that marriage involves government benefits was because government wanted to encourage stable relationships that lead to procreation. And the "not all heterosexual marriages lead to procreation, so that's b.s." no more invalidates the CONCEPT of why governments do it than the "some people use spoons to hang from their nose as a trick" means that spoons aren't meant to be eating utensils.

I don't really have a dog in the fight. I'm not gay, I support gay rights and I think society's verdict on gay marriage is in, I just don't think that ALL arguments against gay marriage are a result of bigotry.

(although to be clear, a lot are. OSC's certainly seems to be.)
That's fascinating. It has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, but fascinating nonetheless.

your post and his addressed marriage and government benefits as a result of it. It is not my problem if reading comprehension is a weakness of yours.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 06:01 PM   #403
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

Samuel Walters wrote: View Post
You mean, as in, laws? From whom do these laws come?
I think the government should be involved in child custody disputes, not marriage. One strikes me as incredibly necessary, the other as frivolous.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 06:01 PM   #404
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Samuel Walters wrote: View Post
You mean, as in, laws? From whom do these laws come?
I think the government should be involved in child custody disputes, not marriage. One strikes me as incredibly necessary, the other as frivolous.
Have you ever been married?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 13 2013, 06:02 PM   #405
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

DalekJim wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
There still has to be laws that allow for the dissolution of that coupling.
Well, here we come to our core philosophical difference. I don't think the government should handle the joining and dissolution of sexual partners. I don't see why there has to be a law there. Have laws for child custody, for property ownership, for whatever other issue you'd LIKELY name but don't get involved with the union and dissolution of couples. That's what I'd like.

I really do think this hit it right on the nose...
Well, I think you've been paying absolutely zero attention if you feel that way and I see no reason to engage you in further discussion if you're just going to sling irrelevant abuse and allegations my way.
You're right, for simply sexual partners, yea, nobody should be involved, you go into a room, take off your clothes and have a good time, there should be no need for anything. However, in a long term relationship, where you build a life together, maybe raise kids or buy a home and car and business, you need to involve the Legal system which is Government
__________________
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 online now   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 05:54 PM.

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