Lack of LGBT characters and the "magic bullet"
- Thread starter V
- Start date
On record to ensure you get all the benefits of being married. Not an invasion of privacy.
So does that mean my birth certificate is an invasion of privacy too? I'm on record there.
Or since you mentioned drivers licenses, which are to show that you know how to use a car properly, does that mean a doctors medical license is an invasion of privacy too? Should we get rid of all of that and let just anyone perform medical procedures on us?
On record does not mean they are invading your personal life. In this case it's a way to ensure you get the privileges and benefits that go with being married, or driving a car, or saving people's lives.
And even if you did get rid of marriage, but kept civil union, it'd still be on record anyway so that argument become moot. Even if there was a scrap of logic to it.
So does that mean my birth certificate is an invasion of privacy too? I'm on record there.
Or since you mentioned drivers licenses, which are to show that you know how to use a car properly, does that mean a doctors medical license is an invasion of privacy too? Should we get rid of all of that and let just anyone perform medical procedures on us?
On record does not mean they are invading your personal life. In this case it's a way to ensure you get the privileges and benefits that go with being married, or driving a car, or saving people's lives.
And even if you did get rid of marriage, but kept civil union, it'd still be on record anyway so that argument become moot. Even if there was a scrap of logic to it.
Feel free to debate the topic but do not make this personal please. Keep the speculations about each others mental fitness out of this.
My apologies for the choice of words. That was just what comes to mind when I hear things like big brother and the government invading our privacy. I'll watch myself more closely now.
That's not necessary, though.... They need the birth certificate as prove of citizenship, medical license as prove of doctors' competency (so they won't kill people), the same as driving license, and just in case you did do something reckless and dangerous (which is possible). And, civil union is just living together. If you commit a crime, the government can order the insurance company (or whoever) to disclose the information, which under normal circumstances they are not permitted to do.
Gotta be honest here: civil unions/domestic partnerships vs. civil marriage is a difference that makes no difference. I've seen my marriage license exactly once (in 17 years), the day that I signed it.
If it were up to me, the quickest and cleanest way to solve the problem is to just to rename marriage to 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' for any adults (two, three or nineteen) who want to be legally bonded. When a term like 'marriage' becomes a conflict point it's time to just dispatch it to the annals of history and move on.
If it were up to me, the quickest and cleanest way to solve the problem is to just to rename marriage to 'civil union' or 'domestic partnership' for any adults (two, three or nineteen) who want to be legally bonded. When a term like 'marriage' becomes a conflict point it's time to just dispatch it to the annals of history and move on.
Actually my comment was not specifically directed at you but to everyone posting right now. (But thank you for the courtesy. It is appreciated.)
The idea in principle might be good, but the problem is once you do that the argument starts all over again. Only it will be whether or not civil union should be allowed between same sex couples instead of marriage between same sex couples.
And in a sense, yeah, a rose by any other name. But if it's not equal for everyone, then it doesn't matter what it's called.
I think it really boils down to a two part problem:
One - Domestic partnerships/civil unions need to be equal across the board. With the same advantages and disadvantages...
Two - Marriage as a term has been used to define couplings between male and female for at least two millenium now and it is going to be difficult to get the general populace to see it any other way, hence dispatching the particular term to history and fringe groups who want to continue to use it. An example of this problem is the Washington Redskins. Everyone knows the term 'redskin' is derogatory, yet no one is interested in it being changed... and it's only been in use for seventy years. It's the name of the team and no one cares who it slanders.
As in all things... YMMV.
Oh, right! 
Just like some cultures permit multiple wives.... It does cause more problems than a single wife when they try to win the man's affection, and you probably have to make a lot more money, too. That kind of stuff is frowned upon by western standards. So, forgive me if I don't see the similarities...!
Just like some cultures permit multiple wives.... It does cause more problems than a single wife when they try to win the man's affection, and you probably have to make a lot more money, too. That kind of stuff is frowned upon by western standards. So, forgive me if I don't see the similarities...!
Last edited:
Or a sentence.
You can think that all you want, but you are legally wrong. Under U.S. law, marriage is a fundamental right.
It would be factually accurate for you to say that you think it should not be a right, not to say that it is not a right.
You don't have to do a damn thing. You have a right to get married, not an obligation.
You are wrong. The Founding Fathers of the United States represented a number of different faiths, and explicitly designed the federal government to be religiously neutral -- to the point where, when they the Treaty of Tripoli between the United States and the Barbary state of Tripoli in 1797, they included the following section:
In other words, the Founding Fathers of the United States -- who were still running the U.S. in 1797, mind you -- explicitly said that the U.S. government did not originally represent religious groups.Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli said:
I take it that you are referring to equal access to same-sex marriage in this section. It's not a law yet, dude. There are still plenty of states that ban same-sex marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment. I'm making a legal argument about one of the many implications about the 14th Amendment, not describing an actual statute.
And, no, for those states that do protect same-sex marriage, that is NOT a law that allows the government to reach into anyone's privacy, any more than ANY law letting straights marry reaches into anyone's privacy. Letting LGBT couples marry just means equality with straights, not violation of anyone's privacy.
No one has an obligation to get married, be they straight or LGBT. You have every right to remain unmarried for the rest of your life, and you have every right to get married. It's completely your choice. That's all LGBTs are asking for -- equal choice.
So long as a person is not violating anyone else's rights, I completely agree.
There is nothing practical about re-writing the entirety of U.S. law to eliminate marriage.
And who the hell are you to tell anyone, gay or straight, that they ought not to be able to get married?
Having the right to get married doesn't interfere with anyone's affairs. All it is is a civil institution which establishes certain legal rights and entitlements between two people to one-another, into which they may voluntarily enter and voluntarily leave. That's not a violation of anyone's rights, especially since they can chose not to marry if they find the idea of there being an entry on the public record saying, "John Doe married Jane Doe on 14 November 1997" objectionable for whatever reason.
It would, in fact, be interference into someone's affairs to prevent him or her from getting married by abolishing civil marriage.
Advocating for equal access to marriage and for equal rights for LGBTs does not make anyone at nutcase.
Yes, they've got you on record as getting married. That's all. It's not like they implant a tracking device when you say, "I do."
And guess what? If you're born, they've got you on record, too (because of birth certificates).
Since you're advocating that we abolish marriage because marriage licenses put you on record, are you advocating that we abolish birth as well?
More than that. They need it as proof of personal identity, and to keep track of how many people are born in a given jurisdiction.
I take it by this you are also referring to civil marriage. This is not the case, as anyone would know who's ever been thrown out of a hospital after general visiting hours were over because they were a gay couple without the ability to get married.
What the hell are you talking about?
All that would do is deny to heterosexual couples their right to civil marriage, too. And it would have the de facto effect of denying marriage of any sort to atheistic couples, since they would not be able to get a religious institution to perform a religious marriage for them without lying about their beliefs.
You don't have to accept any damn thing. I haven't forced you to nor do I intend to. I have exercised my First Amendment right to evaluate your opinion, nothing more. Stop pretending to be a victim.
I prefer what what way?
I do, indeed, argue that your attitudes (a combination of indifference and bigotry against LGBTS) are deeply heterosexist and constitute a prime example of non-governmental oppression against LGBTs in every culture.
Your attitudes also constitute a prime example of why Star Trek, a program which in theory advocates for equality for all people, should have LGBT characters who are depicted in a positive manner.
Similar threads
