AD versus Common Era

[Rush Limborg]

Let's go through this one more time...

Are you seriously going to compare a Supreme Court decision that empowers citizens to one that took away every single right a person had?

Seriously?

C'mon, man. There's an obvious difference between the natural right to marry and the racist belief that blacks aren't people.

Leaving aside the question of what a "natural right" is, I was clearly using that as an example of why one should not be of the mindset of "the Supreme Court said it--so that ends the argument".

Unless you're suggesting we fight a civil war over gay marriage -- or, since Loving v. Virginia determined that the fact that marriage was a right meant that states couldn't prevent interracial couples from marrying, a civil war over interracial marriage -- then that does end the argument. Marriage is a right in the United States whether you like it or not.

Note my other example, Sci--Buck v. Bell.

We didn't fight a civil war over that. Once again, that is a red herring.

How dare the government enumerate rights for its citizens! Obviously people should be more restricted in their rights and have less freedom.

No. That's the entire point of it being a right -- that it can't be taken away. That's why civil marriage is important -- it allows people to get married even when private institutions like churches refuse to perform or recognize marriages for them. It increases people's freedom that way.

The government enumerates rights that already exist.

Or to be more specific, as President Obama would say, the Constitution is a document of "negative" liberties--what the government can't to to people--as opposed to "positive" liberties--what the government "should" do for people.

That is why I am firmly against the concept of marriage being a government institution. That is the "legal arguement" I am "invested in".

You use nice buzzwords, but the actual effect of your argument is to diminish the rights of a citizen. Your ideal situation would make people less free, because they would be dependent upon the whims of private religious institutions to get married, and they would be regarded as having fewer rights.

Let me put this way once again, Sci: You keep bringing up something called "civil marriage". Once again, with this, you bring up the premise that marriage is a government instiution.

That's because it is. Marriage has been both a governmental and religious institution since time immemorial, and has certainly been both throughout the entire history of the United States. That's why ship captains can perform marriages, why you've always been able to go to a justice of the peace.

What you're proposing is a radical redefinition of marriage, a privatization of marriage that places it in the hands of religious elites and out of the hands of the democratically-elected government. What you're proposing would inhibit people's freedoms, take away their rights, and make their ability to marry dependent upon the whims of church leaders. What you're proposing is to make people less free.

First--once again, what I am "proposing" is simply that the government-instituted "civil unions" should, as far as the government is concerned, be on the same standing as traditional marriages. Legally, it would be exactly the same. Culturally, social conservatives would also be satisfied--the institution of marriage is, as far as they are concerned, preserved.

Second--"radical redefinition of marriage"? The traditional definition of marriage involves a man and a woman. Do not call the kettle black, sir.

Let me repeat a point I'd made earlier--one that should make this point clear:

Now...let me ask you something. You say that limiting "marriage" to its traditional definition is "discrimination against LGBTs."

By that argument..."marriage" should be extended to include many other standards. For example, things considered "polygamy" and, if we were to take this to the extreme (and I frankly see no reason why not), "consentual incest", as it were.

Should blood relatives be allowed to marry? Should adult offspring be allowed to marry their parents, or aunts/uncles? Should we be allowed to lower the age limit for marriage to include, say, high-school students?

If this sounds like a "slippery slope fallacy", let me ask: isn't answering those questions with a "no" in fact discrimination against said groups?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

] Aren't these readily and inexpensively available from pharmacies? Service stations, supermarkets, family planning clinics?

Yes, but not everybody can afford even that. Plus some people don't want to be seen purchasing those.

So use the vending machine in the loo at the service station or pub/club.
Oh Good Grief, join the post HIV/AIDS 21st Century already!

I would think that it'd be an honor to be seen in public purchasing birth control and/or condoms. It shows the world that you're about to have sex.

 

[BillJ]

Yes, but not everybody can afford even that. Plus some people don't want to be seen purchasing those.

So use the vending machine in the loo at the service station or pub/club.
Oh Good Grief, join the post HIV/AIDS 21st Century already!

I would think that it'd be an honor to be seen in public purchasing birth control and/or condoms. It shows the world that you're about to have sex.

It would really blow the general public's mind if you wore a Star Trek t-shirt while making the purchase.

 

[DimesDan]

Sorry, but marriage isn't any more a right than getting a driver's license.

The United States Supreme Court in the 1960s decided that you are wrong on this. It is a right, and if you don't like that, too bad.

FYI The United States Supreme Court means fuck all outside of the United States of America.

I'd have to begrudgingly agree with Captain April, Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege as it is not really up there with the real rights of being able to not be harmed by your government or the real big ones, the right to free health care and free speech and all that jazz, you know, the real ones, the ones you should get self righteous over.

The "right" to get married as probably has been pointed out in the few posts I've skipped to write this can and is abused, especially with in the EU, many EU nations have it far better than many other nations around the world, hell, we have this little thing called the welfare state here in the UK which means many people would rather be here than say America because here it is the right to have access to top notch health care even if you live below the bread line. This is a RIGHT, marriage, whether you're straight, gay, bi or which ever floats your boat is a privilege and is taken far to lightly by too many people.

 

[SicOne]

So use the vending machine in the loo at the service station or pub/club.
Oh Good Grief, join the post HIV/AIDS 21st Century already!

I would think that it'd be an honor to be seen in public purchasing birth control and/or condoms. It shows the world that you're about to have sex.

It would really blow the general public's mind if you wore a Star Trek t-shirt while making the purchase.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

FYI The United States Supreme Court means fuck all outside of the United States of America.

My world is collapsing.

 

[Thestral]

^ I LOL'ed.

Yes, but not everybody can afford even that. Plus some people don't want to be seen purchasing those.

So use the vending machine in the loo at the service station or pub/club.
Oh Good Grief, join the post HIV/AIDS 21st Century already!

Is birth control freely available in the restroom?

I would think that it'd be an honor to be seen in public purchasing birth control and/or condoms. It shows the world that you're about to have sex.

True, but you're not a teenager in a tiny town where people gossip.

 

[Sci]

Sorry, but marriage isn't any more a right than getting a driver's license.

The United States Supreme Court in the 1960s decided that you are wrong on this. It is a right, and if you don't like that, too bad.

FYI The United States Supreme Court means fuck all outside of the United States of America.

Yes, and we're arguing about what rights people should have inside of the United States of America. You're welcome to begin debating with a fellow Briton about what rights people should have inside of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The government enumerates rights that already exist.

Like the right to marry.

Or to be more specific, as President Obama would say, the Constitution is a document of "negative" liberties--what the government can't to to people--as opposed to "positive" liberties--what the government "should" do for people.

No, the Constitution contains both. Guaranteeing that you have a right to due process of law and a speedy and fair trial by a jury of your peers, for instance, is obviously an example of something the government should do for someone.

That is why I am firmly against the concept of marriage being a government institution. That is the "legal arguement" I am "invested in".

You use nice buzzwords, but the actual effect of your argument is to diminish the rights of a citizen. Your ideal situation would make people less free, because they would be dependent upon the whims of private religious institutions to get married, and they would be regarded as having fewer rights.

Let me put this way once again, Sci: You keep bringing up something called "civil marriage". Once again, with this, you bring up the premise that marriage is a government instiution.

That's because it is. Marriage has been both a governmental and religious institution since time immemorial, and has certainly been both throughout the entire history of the United States. That's why ship captains can perform marriages, why you've always been able to go to a justice of the peace.

What you're proposing is a radical redefinition of marriage, a privatization of marriage that places it in the hands of religious elites and out of the hands of the democratically-elected government. What you're proposing would inhibit people's freedoms, take away their rights, and make their ability to marry dependent upon the whims of church leaders. What you're proposing is to make people less free.

First--once again, what I am "proposing" is simply that the government-instituted "civil unions" should, as far as the government is concerned, be on the same standing as traditional marriages.

Which means that someone who wants to get married rather than civil unioned would not be able to go to the government. Which means that the right to marry would no longer be guaranteed by the government, but would instead be dependent upon the whims of private institutions.

Let me put it this way, Rush:

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any religious institution. I want, one day, to marry. I do not want to civilly union a woman, I want to marry her. Your proposal would take away my right to get married by a justice of the peace. Your proposal takes away my rights and liberties. It directly disempowers me.

Second--"radical redefinition of marriage"? The traditional definition of marriage involves a man and a woman.

Which "traditional" definition? The one where a woman is a man's property and must obey him? The one where she relinquishes the right to say "No" if he wants to have sex? The one where only people of the same race get to marry?

There have been lots of traditional definitions of marriage. We keep tinkering with the definition to be more inclusive and egalitarian. Sure, I'm proposing a redefinition of marriage -- but I'm proposing one that would increase people's freedoms, not take it away. You're proposing that we restrict access to marriage.

Now...let me ask you something. You say that limiting "marriage" to its traditional definition is "discrimination against LGBTs."

By that argument..."marriage" should be extended to include many other standards. For example, things considered "polygamy"

Yes. I see no reason why two or more consenting adults should not be allowed to have a civil marriage. Why?

Because a right should only be restricted if it violates someone else's rights. You should only be thrown in prison if your liberty has been proven to threaten someone else's rights (such as the right to life, or right to own property, because you've been convicted of murder or theft). You should only be restricted from marrying if doing so infringes upon someone else's rights (such as, for instance, you should be restricted from marrying a legal minor since legal minors do not have the capacity to consent).

This is what actually believing in liberty means, Rush: That some things should be legally protected which you think are kind of disgusting.

Should blood relatives be allowed to marry? Should adult offspring be allowed to marry their parents, or aunts/uncles?

I'd say that there's a reasonable question as to the capacity of parties in such marriages to consent, since incest so often involves physical and/or emotional abuse that impairs judgment, and that, as such, no, I wouldn't support the right of relatives to marry in the vast majority of cases.

But I'm also not worried about it, because I fully expect unofficial social stigma to prevent this from becoming an issue 99.99% of the time.

Should we be allowed to lower the age limit for marriage to include, say, high-school students?

Well, technically, we have. In several states, it's legal to marry high school students who are above the age of consent if you have parental permission.

I don't agree with that, actually -- I think the legal age of majority should be regarded as the age at which a person gains the legal capacity to consent, and that before that age, the person should be regarded as having no capacity to consent and thus, any sexual acts of marriages entered into by that legal minor with a legal adult should be regarded as a violation of that minor's right to be free of such acts until she or he is legally capable of consenting to them.

If this sounds like a "slippery slope fallacy",

It is the slippery slope fallacy.

let me ask: isn't answering those questions with a "no" in fact discrimination against said groups?

[/QUOTE]

Well, of course it is. Some forms of discrimination are just fine. You wouldn't, for instance, want it to be legal for someone to practice as a surgeon if he or she hasn't gone to medical school and received qualifications. Sure, we're discriminating against people who haven't received medical qualifications when we do that, but that's not a bad thing. Discrimination is not inherently bad, it's the basis upon which one discriminates. There has to be a valid reason to discriminate.

There's a valid reason to discriminate against, say, marriages between 11-year-olds and 18-year-olds; the 11-year-old does not have the legal (and, in the majority of cases, practical) capacity to consent. There's a valid reason to discriminate against child molesters when hiring public school teachers. Etc.

But there's no valid reason to discriminate against same-sex couples in granting them access to civil marriage. The only reasons presented are, "Some people don't like it because the traditional definition excludes them." Well, so what? There's a valid reason to redefine civil marriage to be more egalitarian and inclusive -- those reasons being that access to civil marriage is a right (Loving v. Virginia) and that the 14th Amendment requires equal treatment under the law, and that same-sex marriages do not violate anyone else's rights nor present any questions about the ability of two adults to consent. But there's no valid reason to discriminate against them.

Or, for that matter, to discriminate against anyone who doesn't want to get married in a church. Like me.

 

[Defcon]

And all of this is related to TrekLit because ...

 

[Thestral]

...any sexual acts of marriages entered into by that legal minor with a legal adult should be regarded as a violation of that minor's right to be free of such acts until she or he is legally capable of consenting to them.

That's just nonsense. Way to turn longtime high school sweethearts into criminals the day one of them turns 18.

 

[Sci]

...any sexual acts of marriages entered into by that legal minor with a legal adult should be regarded as a violation of that minor's right to be free of such acts until she or he is legally capable of consenting to them.

That's just nonsense. Way to turn longtime high school sweethearts into criminals the day one of them turns 18.

Did I say the age of legal adulthood should stay at 18?

Some states have an exemption for legal adults within x number of years of the age of the legal minor provided that minor is X years of age old.

Personally, I think that either the legal age of adulthood should be lowered to match the age of consent, or that the age of consent should apply universally to all potential partners (in most jurisdictions, it doesn't seem to, given the number of news reports of older adults being charged for sexual relations with minors who had reached the age of consent) and to all sexual acts (including the creation of personal erotica). And certainly there's a valid question about why it would be legal to have sex with a minor who had reached the age of consent yet it would be child pornography to take a nude photograph of them.

If the latter, though, I do think that marriages should remain invalid and should only apply to those who have reached the age of legal adulthood, just like a contract.

 

[Rush Limborg]

No, the Constitution contains both. Guaranteeing that you have a right to due process of law and a speedy and fair trial by a jury of your peers, for instance, is obviously an example of something the government should do for someone.

The "due process", "speedy and fair trial", and "jury of peers" concepts come from English common law. It was a tradition of the colonies before the Constitution was founded--and frankly, common law as a whole had not exactly been put into official document form before then. It was just "understood" to exist.

BTW, some states, such as Louisiana (which had been a French colony, and therefore had as its "tradition" the Napoleonic Code as opposed to English common law), don't have the concept of a jury of peers--and that clause of the Bill of Rights has yet to be incorporated to the states.

Which means that someone who wants to get married rather than civil unioned would not be able to go to the government. Which means that the right to marry would no longer be guaranteed by the government, but would instead be dependent upon the whims of private institutions.

...

If this sounds like a "slippery slope fallacy",

It is the slippery slope fallacy.

let me ask: isn't answering those questions with a "no" in fact discrimination against said groups?

Well, of course it is. Some forms of discrimination are just fine. You wouldn't, for instance, want it to be legal for someone to practice as a surgeon if he or she hasn't gone to medical school and received qualifications. Sure, we're discriminating against people who haven't received medical qualifications when we do that, but that's not a bad thing. Discrimination is not inherently bad, it's the basis upon which one discriminates. There has to be a valid reason to discriminate.

There's a valid reason to discriminate against, say, marriages between 11-year-olds and 18-year-olds; the 11-year-old does not have the legal (and, in the majority of cases, practical) capacity to consent. There's a valid reason to discriminate against child molesters when hiring public school teachers. Etc.

But there's no valid reason to discriminate against same-sex couples in granting them access to civil marriage. The only reasons presented are, "Some people don't like it because the traditional definition excludes them." Well, so what? There's a valid reason to redefine civil marriage to be more egalitarian and inclusive -- those reasons being that access to civil marriage is a right (Loving v. Virginia) and that the 14th Amendment requires equal treatment under the law, and that same-sex marriages do not violate anyone else's rights nor present any questions about the ability of two adults to consent. But there's no valid reason to discriminate against them.

Or, for that matter, to discriminate against anyone who doesn't want to get married in a church. Like me.

...

Let me put it this way, Rush:

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any religious institution. I want, one day, to marry. I do not want to civilly union a woman, I want to marry her. Your proposal would take away my right to get married by a justice of the peace. Your proposal takes away my rights and liberties. It directly disempowers me.

Well, there is such a thing as a "common law marriage". Updating that to the theory I proposed...the subculture you're a part of can freely call your civil union a "marriage". You and the spouse in question can thus be allowed to call it marriage--and the atheist "community" (as it were) can recognize it as such on its own.

Frankly, the more religious communities (such as my own "evangelical" community) would doubtless be perfectly fine with recognizing it in the same way, as it would be heterosexual.


But even the homosexual community would be allowed to call their unions marriage, as far as the community is concerned. Furthermore, the less traditionalist communities in society--the more "liberal" ones, if you will--would gladly recognize such unions in the same way.

The difference between the above scenario and the one in which we currently reside is simply this: the marketplace of ideas is unleashed, without intervention by the government. Let society reform or retain what definitions or concepts of marriage it will.

Which "traditional" definition? The one where a woman is a man's property and must obey him? The one where she relinquishes the right to say "No" if he wants to have sex? The one where only people of the same race get to marry?

And which of those "traditions" have survived the marketplace of ideas? It's "love, honor, and cherish" now, as opposed to "love, honor, and obey". Spousal rape is a crime, and is despised Left and Right. Banning of interracial marriage is also deeply frowned upon by society en masse.

There have been lots of traditional definitions of marriage. We keep tinkering with the definition to be more inclusive and egalitarian. Sure, I'm proposing a redefinition of marriage -- but I'm proposing one that would increase people's freedoms, not take it away. You're proposing that we restrict access to marriage.

...I see no reason why two or more consenting adults should not be allowed to have a civil marriage. Why?

...a right should only be restricted if it violates someone else's rights. You should only be thrown in prison if your liberty has been proven to threaten someone else's rights (such as the right to life, or right to own property, because you've been convicted of murder or theft). You should only be restricted from marrying if doing so infringes upon someone else's rights (such as, for instance, you should be restricted from marrying a legal minor since legal minors do not have the capacity to consent).

This is what actually believing in liberty means, Rush: That some things should be legally protected which you think are kind of disgusting.

Sci, while your last sentance here is true, even John Locke himself--the great champion of "natural rights" himself--was careful to point out that there is a major difference between "liberty" and "licence". Indeed, you yourself draw the line at disgusting behavior like so:

I'd say that there's a reasonable question as to the capacity of parties in such marriages to consent, since incest so often involves physical and/or emotional abuse that impairs judgment, and that, as such, no, I wouldn't support the right of relatives to marry in the vast majority of cases.

Now, as to what you add here--

But I'm also not worried about it, because I fully expect unofficial social stigma to prevent this from becoming an issue 99.99% of the time.

--yet, when the "unofficial social stigma" affects homosexual relationships, you say it is due to bigotry and intolerance. What is the difference?

...In several states, it's legal to marry high school students who are above the age of consent if you have parental permission.

I don't agree with that, actually -- I think the legal age of majority should be regarded as the age at which a person gains the legal capacity to consent, and that before that age, the person should be regarded as having no capacity to consent and thus, any sexual acts of marriages entered into by that legal minor with a legal adult should be regarded as a violation of that minor's right to be free of such acts until she or he is legally capable of consenting to them.

...any sexual acts of marriages entered into by that legal minor with a legal adult should be regarded as a violation of that minor's right to be free of such acts until she or he is legally capable of consenting to them.

That's just nonsense. Way to turn longtime high school sweethearts into criminals the day one of them turns 18.

Did I say the age of legal adulthood should stay at 18?

Some states have an exemption for legal adults within x number of years of the age of the legal minor provided that minor is X years of age old.

Personally, I think that either the legal age of adulthood should be lowered to match the age of consent, or that the age of consent should apply universally to all potential partners (in most jurisdictions, it doesn't seem to, given the number of news reports of older adults being charged for sexual relations with minors who had reached the age of consent) and to all sexual acts (including the creation of personal erotica). And certainly there's a valid question about why it would be legal to have sex with a minor who had reached the age of consent yet it would be child pornography to take a nude photograph of them.

If the latter, though, I do think that marriages should remain invalid and should only apply to those who have reached the age of legal adulthood, just like a contract.

So, in that case, you go by the "legal age of majority".

Now, let me ask: why should the latter scenario be a possibility, so that before that universally-applicable age, "the person should be regarded as having no capacity to consent," etc.? Why would the legal age of adulthood be later than the age of consent?

 

[BillJ]

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any religious institution. I want, one day, to marry. I do not want to civilly union a woman, I want to marry her. Your proposal would take away my right to get married by a justice of the peace. Your proposal takes away my rights and liberties. It directly disempowers me.

I just don't buy your contention that calling it a civil union versus a marriage somehow disempowers you (as long as the rights given in a government marriage also exists in a civil union). Like I've said in other threads: the private market will provide you with the tools to get the full marriage experience if the government were to move to a civil union model.

 

[Sci]

I am an Atheist. I do not believe in any religious institution. I want, one day, to marry. I do not want to civilly union a woman, I want to marry her. Your proposal would take away my right to get married by a justice of the peace. Your proposal takes away my rights and liberties. It directly disempowers me.

I just don't buy your contention that calling it a civil union versus a marriage somehow disempowers you

Of course it does. It means I can't get married.

(as long as the rights given in a government marriage also exists in a civil union).

No such thing.

As this post eloquently puts it:

Civil unions provide equivalent benefits at the state level, but offer no recognition outside the individual state. They were invented by the Vermont legislature as a way to avoid granting marriage to same-sex couples, and they have proven to be a messy, inadequate solution.

Domestic partnership recognition, as implemented in California, New Jersey, and other locations, provide some of the benefits of marriage, but not all of them, even at the state level. And, again, they are not recognized outside their specific jurisdiction. They are a way of creating a lesser status, not an equal one, for same-sex couples.

The only analysis they miss is that it's a lesser status for anyone forced into them because the right to marry has been denied to them.

Like I've said in other threads: the private market will provide you

Fuck the market. I don't want to buy a marriage in a transaction that the seller can unilaterally cancel, and I don't want to depend on someone else's whims for my marriage. If I and my girlfriend want to get married, we're entitled to that, and no private marketplace should be able to tell us no. That's why civil marriage exists -- so that you don't have to depend on someone else's whims.

No, the Constitution contains both. Guaranteeing that you have a right to due process of law and a speedy and fair trial by a jury of your peers, for instance, is obviously an example of something the government should do for someone.

The "due process", "speedy and fair trial", and "jury of peers" concepts come from English common law.

Which does not change the fact that they are examples of things the government is forced to do for you found in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is not just about negative liberty, but also positive liberty.

BTW, some states, such as Louisiana (which had been a French colony, and therefore had as its "tradition" the Napoleonic Code as opposed to English common law), don't have the concept of a jury of peers--and that clause of the Bill of Rights has yet to be incorporated to the states.

The 14th Amendment means that the federal Bill of Rights applies to the states as well.

Well, there is such a thing as a "common law marriage".

That depends upon what state you live in. And, frankly, I don't want to have to rely on a common-law practice that could get abolished at any time. I want a justice of the peace to say to me, "You're married," period. And I'm not willing to settle for anything less.

Updating that to the theory I proposed...the subculture you're a part of can freely call your civil union a "marriage".

Fuck the subculture. I want it to be a marriage under the law, and I want the law to recognize it as such and perform it.

I don't want to have a situation like this one, where my civil-union-partner-who-happens-to-be-female (can't call her a wife if you're not legally married) is giving birth, a hospital employee asks if she's married, she says she's in a civil union, and the employee marks that she's single.

You're not equal if you're separate. It's that simple. As long as you're civil-union'ed rather than married, you're not equal.

But even the homosexual community would be allowed to call their unions marriage, as far as the community is concerned.

"Oh, but black people get their own special water fountain! It's completely equal, as far as the black community is concerned!"

The difference between the above scenario and the one in which we currently reside is simply this: the marketplace of ideas is unleashed, without intervention by the government.

Oh, bullshit. The marketplace is full of leashes, they're just not governmental leashes. The only true freedom to marry is freedom to marry by the authority of the law. Anything else is just a privilege some private entity has no obligation to extend.

And which of those "traditions" have survived the marketplace of ideas? It's "love, honor, and cherish" now, as opposed to "love, honor, and obey". Spousal rape is a crime, and is despised Left and Right. Banning of interracial marriage is also deeply frowned upon by society en masse.

Yes, and restricting civil marriage to heterosexual couples is yet another tradition that deserves to die. Which apparently, it is. And good riddance. Now we just have to make sure the government reflects what the majority of the public recognizes: That gays have the same natural right to marry that heterosexuals do.

I'd say that there's a reasonable question as to the capacity of parties in such marriages to consent, since incest so often involves physical and/or emotional abuse that impairs judgment, and that, as such, no, I wouldn't support the right of relatives to marry in the vast majority of cases.

Now, as to what you say here--

But I'm also not worried about it, because I fully expect unofficial social stigma to prevent this from becoming an issue 99.99% of the time.

And yet, when the "unofficial social stigma" affects homosexual relationships, you call it bigotry and intolerance. What is the difference?

You are honestly asking what the difference is between incest and homosexuality?

Seriously?

Okay, to start with, homosexuality is not in any way harmful or bad for you, nor does it indicate any sort of mental illness or past trauma. Whereas there are long-observed psychological mechanisms in place in mentally healthy people to prevent incest, and incest is usually seen in examples of non-consensual physical and/or emotional abuse.

Why would the legal age of adulthood be later than the age of consent?

Mostly because I don't question the ability of the vast majority of teenagers to engage in sexual activities without significant psychological trauma, but do question their psychological capacity to make life-long commitments and legal arrangements.

 

[Captain Robert April]

If it's called marriage, civil union, living in sin, a multitronic kumquat transducer array, WHAT THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME!?!?!

When it boils down to arguing over semantics, it all comes down to the same question: Are you really trying to attain "equal rights" or rub it in the face of all those breeders that have pissed you off over the years?

 

[Sci]

If it's called marriage, civil union, living in sin, a multitronic kumquat transducer array, WHAT THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME!?!?!

The rights and privileges will never be the same. The only way the rights and privileges will be the same is if it's marriage. Period.

Are you really trying to attain "equal rights" or rub it in the face of all those breeders that have pissed you off over the years?

1. I'm a heterosexual male.

2. Why on Earth would gay people marrying be "rubbing it in the face" of straights? Unless of course that's your real attitude towards gay marriage -- that they're just doing it to rub it in your face.

 

[Captain Robert April]

If it's called marriage, civil union, living in sin, a multitronic kumquat transducer array, WHAT THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME!?!?!

The rights and privileges will never be the same. The only way the rights and privileges will be the same is if it's marriage. Period.

----------------------------The Point--------------------->

_______________________YOU________________________

Again, are you after the actual rights, or the fucking label?

 

[Sci]

If it's called marriage, civil union, living in sin, a multitronic kumquat transducer array, WHAT THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES ARE ALL THE FUCKING SAME!?!?!

The rights and privileges will never be the same. The only way the rights and privileges will be the same is if it's marriage. Period.

Again, are you after the actual rights, or the fucking label?

You can't rationally claim that segregated fountains are okay if the ones for black people give out some of the same water. And you cannot rationally claim that segregated marital schemes are okay just because civil unions give out some of the same rights.

The rights and the label are inseparable.

 

[ATimson]

The rights and the label are inseparable.

Unless you're saying that being able to use the term "married" is a right... no, they aren't; there's absolutely no reason that all the legal rights attached to a marriage currently couldn't - shouldn't - be attached to a non-religious civil union instead.

And if you are saying that, I'd love to see a rational defense of it (and no, "I want to be married" isn't rational).

 

[BillJ]

You can't rationally claim that segregated fountains are okay if the ones for black people give out some of the same water. And you cannot rationally claim that segregated marital schemes are okay just because civil unions give out some of the same rights.

The rights and the label are inseparable.

This seems to be where you keep mistaking my point. I'm not saying marriage for some and not for others. I'm saying civil unions for all. What you privately want to label it is up to you.

ATimson said it better than I ever could.