Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

[DalekJim]

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.

 

[Sindatur]

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.

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.

 

[DalekJim]

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.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

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.

 

[BillJ]

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.

 

[DalekJim]

" why the fuck do I really care if two grown people enter into a contract with each other"?

Marriage should be a contract between a person and another person (Or persons!). Unfortunately, marriage is a contract between two people and the government.

I have no problem with the concept of marriage as a contract between two people that they themselves honour to eachother in their own privacy. Including the government is absurd though, and is a mutual arrangement between both parties to give both the couple and the government more power.

 

[BillJ]

" why the fuck do I really care if two grown people enter into a contract with each other"?

Marriage should be a contract between a person and another person (Or persons!). Unfortunately, marriage is a contract between two people and the government.

Pretty much all contracts are between two or more parties and the government. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

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.

For the same reason this entire issue is being discussed. It's the fact that, to put it as bluntly as I can, the government treats people differently who sign that contract. If that wasn't the case, gay marriage wouldn't be an issue at all because there'd be nothing to lose or gain from just going into a Unitarian Church, having a ceremony with friends and now say "We're husband/husband or wife/wife." But the very fact that it IS a legal institution, that signing that contract allows the government to treat you differently in any number of ways (many of which discussed above), is precisely what makes this such a thorny subject. If the government just wouldn't say who's allowed to get hospital visitation rights and the like, there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[DalekJim]

Pretty much all contracts are between two or more parties and the government. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

I think the government should only be involved in the most bare of necessities. Having them involved in every aspect of our lives, including our choice of sexual partner, is unnecessary. The more contracts that are made, the more power the government gains over our daily lives. I think it's a bad idea for everybody.

 

[BillJ]

Pretty much all contracts are between two or more parties and the government. Been that way for as long as I can remember.

I think the government should only be involved in the most bare of necessities. Having them involved in every aspect of our lives, including our choice of sexual partner, is unnecessary. The more contracts that are made, the more power the government gains over our daily lives. I think it's a bad idea for everybody.

I don't know about you, but the government has never been involved in my choice of sexual partners.

The government needs to be in contracts to make sure not only the terms of the contract are honored but also the laws of the land.

I'm simply not interested in an anything goes Libertarian wonderland.

 

[sonak]

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_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_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.

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.)

 

[DalekJim]

I'm simply not interested in an anything goes Libertarian wonderland.

It really isn't all that far away from Orson Scott Card's attitude, if you believe the removal of government involvement with marriages would lead to such a radical destabilisation of society. I'm not calling for no laws, I'm calling for only the most necessary of laws, and for certain apron strings to be cut for the good of the many.

You could say that the whole REASON that marriage involves government benefits was because government wanted to encourage stable relationships that lead to procreation.

It is the whole reason, and applying the same benefits to homosexuals only shines a light on how preposterous it all is.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Too many marriages means too many tax benefits, which means they lower the tax benefits for everyone, or continue squashing the old minorities or find new minorities unprepared for being stepped on... Meanwhile not enough marriages means less children, and more importantly: less emotionally-stable-and-productive-children-who-grow-up-to-pay-a-lot-of-taxes.

Thousands of years ago, bible times, without marriage, men would just wander off and women would be murdered by their family for being shame generating whoresluts and the species would have been died out if not for the invention of marriage. The invention of refrigeration should have suspended halal and kosher concerns... Leaving the desert should have done that too. Mummery had to be cloistered for the savages so they didn't use their children for firewood and continue eating actual food no matter how rancid it got.

Homosexuality is way more exciting, life without children is awesome, and considering how few humans there were 3000 years ago, if Homosexuality was allowed to go unchecked... The species would have died out. Although how many heterosexuals and bisexuals would have been exterminated when god raised Gomorrah?

And despite all that, gay people still have a biological clock and a foolish drive to be parents.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm simply not interested in an anything goes Libertarian wonderland.

It really isn't all that far away from Orson Scott Card's attitude, if you believe the removal of government involvement with marriages would lead to such a radical destabilisation of society. I'm not calling for no laws, I'm calling for only the most necessary of laws, and for certain apron strings to be cut for the good of the many.

Attitude about what? Marriage? Gays? Gay Marriage? Because I read some pretty out there attitudes from Card about the third one. And some down right crazy ones about the second. Somehow I doubt Mr Cards attitudes would change if government was out of the marriage business.

If marriage is a contract, especially a legal, then there has to be oversight. That part of the governments job in my opinion.

 

[Set Harth]

No straight person thinks like that.

Well, at least part of it - the "far, far easier for women to get along with other women" and "women know how women think and feel far better than men do" stuff - is actually quite pervasive in the straight community, often rising to the level of outright sexism.

 

[BillJ]

No straight person thinks like that.

Well, at least part of it - the "far, far easier for women to get along with other women" and "women know how women think and feel far better than men do" stuff - is actually quite pervasive in the straight community, often rising to the level of outright sexism.

I've been married for twenty years and have a nineteen year old daughter and I still don't understand women.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_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.

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.

 

[BillJ]

Too many marriages means too many tax benefits...

Which can easily be adjusted.

Regardless of whether you agree with current marriage laws or not, the simple thing is this: everyone needs to be treated equally under the law.

 

[Sindatur]

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.

Huh? Did you misunderstand and think I was saying married and unmarried people should be treated the same in Marriage? No, we're speaking of Marriage, only married people, but, ALL married people should be treated the same and all should be able to be married. Even Gay couples, without children are advantageous to Society, because they acquire things, meaning someone made sales and taxes are collected on those bigger purchases that become easier to purchase when you settle down with a single person

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.

Of course it happens to those who aren't married/legally bound. How can you possibly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, incontestable by their blood family, that you deserve to keep the house, over some relative that wants to take it, or that you have the right to authorize the life saving operation or to be at the top of the short list to be with them when they die in a hospital if you don't have the marriage. Blood trumps many, many other signed documents, especially when Anti-gay Bigots stand in your way.

If you've committed yourself to someone for life, your insane if that's not the person you want to have those rights

 

[DalekJim]

Regardless of whether you agree with current marriage laws or not, the simple thing is this: everyone needs to be treated equally under the law.

I think the best way to treat everybody equally is to not have such an elitist law in the first place, rather than elevate monogamist homosexuals to a higher position of benefits, and equate them with a heterosexual family dynamic.