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

[Set Harth]

So, the best way to "treat everybody equally" is to not elevate (allegedly) monogamist homosexuals to the position currently held by (allegedly) monogamist heterosexuals?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

" 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.

The government isn't required to get married, just don't expect them to step in with any benefits or divorce settlements and the like.

 

[BillJ]

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.

Do you or don't you think homosexuals deserve to be treated equally under current marriage laws? Quit tap dancing.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm not going to get to involved in this, as it obviously, is taking us off topic... but...

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.

Those who don't have the rights and privileges, those who are considered 2nd class citizens, would say otherwise. That said, I do agree with you that marriage means different things to different people, however, there is a LEGAL definition of marriage--that along with it goes a bunch of rights, privileges and contract law.

Like there is a legal definition of adult--which also has a bunch of rights, privileges and contract law...

I believe that gays have the same basic rights as every other human being.

They may have the same basic rights, but, factually, they don't have ALL the same rights as every straight human. For example, in many states, they can't adopt. Simply because they are gay.

And if they have the same basic rights, why are some people fighting SO hard to stop them from having them?

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.

Putting morality aside, because, morality is flexible, having laws that grants rights and privileges to a partner makes things a lot easier. Like, for example, what if someone dies expectantly and there's no will? Easy: the partner gets the estate. Because there is a legal history to rights and privileges to marriage, government is involved to be the mediator.

I don't quite understand why you think it's unbalanced and unfair... what's unfair? That you, as a single person, I assume, can't make life and death decisions for the girl or guy you've been dating for two months? Or that you don't get your girl friend or boy friend's stuff when they die unexpectedly without a will?

What right or privilege of marriage do you as a single person want to take advantage of but can't?

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.

If it's a privilege, why only straight people get to have it? What do gay men and women have to do to earn the "privilege" of getting married?

 

[Sindatur]

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.

No, of course it's not OK, but Marriage is a method of declaring you are committed and what's yours is theirs, there are times when you need absolute proof. You can't just make it a free for all when any old Tom Dick or Mary comes in off the street and makes claims. It doesn't need to be called Marriage, but, there has to be some undeniable Legality for the person you've chosen to give those rights to, if people don't avail themselves of it (When not locked out) how can they prove it?

 

[DalekJim]

Do you or don't you think homosexuals deserve to be treated equally under current marriage laws? Quit tap dancing.

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. 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. I've no idea why the gay community should wish to re-organise themselves in a fashion akin to that of a heterosexual breeding structure. I think there is nothing progressive about it, and it is as conservative as it gets.

There is my answer to you, sir.

 

[Sindatur]

" 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.

The Government is involved to enforce the Contract, because it's not just between the spouses, it's between the Spouses and Society honoring the rights of your commitment

You're absolutely right, the Gpvernment shouldn't be involved in who you select as your partner, they should only enforce your contract of marriage when you need them to. If they let anyone enter that contract, they have nothing to do with your selection of who it is.

 

[BillJ]

Do you or don't you think homosexuals deserve to be treated equally under current marriage laws? Quit tap dancing.

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. Without the breeding aspect, I think it becomes utterly irrelevant, elitist, and absurd.

There is my answer to you, sir.

And the tap dancing continues because it was a basic 'yes' or 'no' question. So I'll take it that you don't think homosexuals deserve the same treatment as straight people under current laws.

 

[DalekJim]

So I'll take it that you don't think homosexuals deserve the same treatment as straight people under current laws.

Hurray, the intellectually-lazy homophobia card is played at the table once more.

Re-read my posts. I am treating heterosexual and homosexual couples in precisely the same way. If I wished for government involvement in heterosexual marriage to be abolished.. why the fuck would I be pro- gay marriage? It doesn't even the playing field giving two groups of people special privileges. It evens the playing field by taking the special privileges away.

 

[BillJ]

So I'll take it that you don't think homosexuals deserve the same treatment as straight people under current laws.

Hurray, the intellectually-lazy homophobia card is played at the table once more.

Re-read my posts. I am treating heterosexual and homosexual couples in precisely the same way.

But you didn't answer the question about current conditions and treatment.

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.

So. Do they deserve the same treatment under current laws?

 

[DalekJim]

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.

What an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of my posts.

 

[BillJ]

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.

What an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of my posts.

Yet you still haven't answered the question about current laws...

 

[DalekJim]

I'm not going to dignify it with a response, and I think it was a thoroughly reprehensible, dishonest thing to imply. You know very well I am arguing against the legal institution of marriage for all sexual orientations, and not against gay rights. I fight for gay rights, I just don't view marriage as a right, so it doesn't come in to play.

 

[BillJ]

I'm not going to dignify it with a response, and I think it was a thoroughly reprehensible, dishonest thing to imply. You know very well I am arguing against the legal institution of marriage for all sexual orientations, and not against gay rights.

But the question isn't about marriage. It's about whether or not homosexuals should be treated fairly under current laws including marriage laws.

 

[Avon]

what trying to get dalekjim to answer the question you actually asked is like

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KHMO14KuJk[/yt]

 

[Sindatur]

Do you or don't you think homosexuals deserve to be treated equally under current marriage laws? Quit tap dancing.

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. 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. I've no idea why the gay community should wish to re-organise themselves in a fashion akin to that of a heterosexual breeding structure. I think there is nothing progressive about it, and it is as conservative as it gets.

There is my answer to you, sir.

Marriage was invented as a Contract of inheritance, to ensure the proper flow of your estate upon passing. You can make babies without being married.

Let's try this another way, what is in marriage now, that you want gone, and what do you want to put into a Contract, just between the two of you, that the Government has no enforcement duties for, and how are you going to enforce it, with a gun?

Tax benefits, I got no problem eliminating, so take that off the table, and tell me how your Contract is different than "marriage allowed for all" and how do you make a Contract without the Government backing?

 

[DalekJim]

But the question isn't about marriage. It's about whether or not homosexuals should be treated fairly under current laws including marriage laws.

Well, I obviously think marriage shouldn't be a legal institution, but if gays did enter in to it then their marriages should be treated exactly the same under law as heterosexual marriages, as I don't believe in discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

I thought this would be incredibly obvious from my posts.

Let's try this another way, what is in marriage now, that you want gone, and what do you want to put into a Contract, just between the two of you, that the Government has no enforcement duties for, and how are you going to enforce it, with a gun?

I think marriage should be a purely personal agreement between two people, with no outside enforcement involved.

 

[BillJ]

I think marriage should be a purely personal agreement between two people, with no outside enforcement involved.

Then how do you resolve disputes?

And it's good to know that you believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry under current laws.

 

[DalekJim]

Then how do you resolve disputes?

What?

 

[BillJ]

Then how do you resolve disputes?

What?

I thought the question was pretty straight-forward.