Ruling: Gay couples should have the same rights as hetrosexul couples

know1

farfromglorified wrote:

Finally, all of these problems would be easily solved if the government would just get out of the business of marriage all together.

EXACTLY. I would be behind this 100%

surferdude

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

It's good that NJ did that, but it shouldn't even be an issue... this is in such clear violation of the seperation of church and state it makes me want to throw up that no one tossed it out of the courts ASAP.

You'e right. It is a clear violation of the seperation of church and state. Marriage is church business and the state should never have gotten into that business. They now have a great opportunity to get out of it. States should stop marrying people and only make civil unions available. Marriage should be a church only affair and have no rights or reponsibilities with it, for ceremonial purposes only.

farfromglorified

know1 wrote:

I disagree. I maintain that homosexuals have the same opportunity as others.

An opportunity and a right are not the same thing. Certainly a straight person and a gay person both have the same opportunity to marry an opposite sex partner. However, again, you cannot escape the fact that for a straight person, that opportunity is consistent with their motivation to marry. For a gay person, that opportunity is inconsistent with their motivation to marry. It's a fundamental difference involving the will of the contracting and the right to translate that will into a contract.

(and again, I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think the arguments make any sense)

They don't typically make sense when presented as a rights issue because people want to equate marriage as a right. Marriage, as a civil institution, is not a right. However, the right to enter into a contract of your choice consistent with your will is a right. With the issue of the marriage contract you have a government who is writing half of the contract without your consent and, for a gay person, what the government is writing attempts to invalidate his or her will.

soulsinging

this is how we solve this:

1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.

2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.

3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.

the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.

Nickrand

farfromglorified wrote:

What "position of power" do I have over homosexuals? I will gladly relinquish it.

Power isn't always something that can be controlled on an individual level. Here, I'm talking about power at a group level. White people--as a group--used to have power over black people on many levels. They still do on some.

In this discussion, married couples have legal and financial power over homosexuals due to the rights that are afforded to them. They also have power in numbers. This power is manifested in the laws that politicans propose and those on which the public votes. For example, if 90% of the population are heterosexual--or if 50% are married--and there is an issue related to homosexuals on the ballot, wouldn't you say that heterosexuals or married couples have some political power over homosexuals?

The implication, however, of the original poster is that such tolerance is not "enough" which in turn implies that there is something I need to do over and above simple tolerance. You seem to indicate that that amounts to "empathy". Fine -- I am empathetic to homosexuals who wish to marry. However, I am also empathetic to those who don't want homosexuals to marry. So where does that get you?

Empathy is one step, a big one at that. The next step requires some action. Instead of just putting yourself into the shoes of someone who is gay or lesbian, you'd actually do something to make a change for the better. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone in the majority would do this, nor would I expect all of them to reach this level.

know1

farfromglorified wrote:

An opportunity and a right are not the same thing. Certainly a straight person and a gay person both have the same opportunity to marry an opposite sex partner. However, again, you cannot escape the fact that for a straight person, that opportunity is consistent with their motivation to marry. For a gay person, that opportunity is inconsistent with their motivation to marry. It's a fundamental difference involving the will of the contracting and the right to translate that will into a contract.

I don't see it as that black and white and I'm surprised you do. As has been discussed, the motivations for actions are endless. Do you really think everyone marries for the same motivation. The most black and white you can be is to agree that it's a choice (whether that's based on certain motivations or not is far too subjective)

farfromglorified wrote:

They don't typically make sense when presented as a rights issue because people want to equate marriage as a right. Marriage, as a civil institution, is not a right. However, the right to enter into a contract of your choice consistent with your will is a right. With the issue of the marriage contract you have a government who is writing half of the contract without your consent and, for a gay person, what the government is writing attempts to invalidate his or her will.

Again, if we follow that logic then we have to allow anyone to marry anybody - no matter how many that is - who will agree to marry them.

know1

soulsinging wrote:

this is how we solve this:

1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.

2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.

3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.

the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.

I agree in general, but I think you have to extend that to polygamists as well.

surferdude

soulsinging wrote:

this is how we solve this:

1. cut marriage out of government. it's a religious idea, not a civil one and there's no need for it. leave marriage to the religious folks who can do what they damn well please with it.

2. create a civil partnership with few boundaries. any two adult citizens can partner. gay lovers, straight couples, single dudes and the moms whose basements they live in, your cool roomate from college. what the fuck ever. the partner acts as basically a power of attorney... can make medical/financial decisions.

3. if you are granted a religious marriage, it is de facto considered a legal civil partnership.

the religious folks are happy: no queers are ruining their marriage. the homosexuals are happy, they get equal public recognition and footing. the government no longer wastes time with marriage and its definition, it simply hands you a contract that you both sign and it's all done. and the rest of us can move the fuck on with our lvies.

This is what I've basically been advocating for from the beginning. But alas the battle is not over tolerance, equality or equal rights. This is a battle about acceptance, government legislated acceptance using the church and it's idea of marriage as the weapon.

Nickrand

farfromglorified wrote:

Fourth, I am not sympathetic to any the ancillary issues involved in gay marriage such as "financial and legal benefits". All of those can and should be addressed by existing contractual arrangements available to both straight and gay people.

Not sure what you mean here. Those issues cannot all be addressed on an individual contract level. What about tax benefits provided to married couples by the government? Those aren't something that are available to gay couples, regardless of the contracts they make themselves.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

I agree in general, but I think you have to extend that to polygamists as well.

im ok with that. who the hell cares? it's their business not mine. personally, i think you'd be a damned fool to want to live with multiple women (let alone have multiple wives to order you around), but if they want to, i dont give a damn.

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

Power isn't always something that can be controlled on an individual level. Here, I'm talking about power at a group level. White people--as a group--used to have power over black people on many levels. They still do on some.

Sorry, that won't work. Just because some white people are idiots doesn't make me an idiot. And just because some black people are stupid doesn't make the black guy next to me stupid. And just because some straight people are violent homophobes doesn't make me one.

Isn't the whole point of these kind of issues to stop grouping individuals into vague categories and assigning bullshit attributes to them?

In this discussion, married couples have legal and financial power over homosexuals due to the rights that are afforded to them.

No, they don't. Homosexuals, on average, earn more than straight couples. Regardless, I do not have power over you just because I likely have more money than you do. Power is not potential, power is active.

They also have power in numbers. This power is manifested in the laws that politicans propose and those on which the public votes. For example, if 90% of the population are heterosexual--or if 50% are married--and there is an issue related to homosexuals on the ballot, wouldn't you say that heterosexuals or married couples have some political power over homosexuals?

You can either have democracy or you cannot. You can't pick and choose. In a democracy, the majority always have a fundamental position of power over the minority. You cannot maintain democracy and assign minority groups additional powers than that of the majority.

Empathy is one step, a big one at that. The next step requires some action. Instead of just putting yourself into the shoes of someone who is gay or lesbian, you'd actually do something to make a change for the better. I'm not naive enough to think that everyone in the majority would do this, nor would I expect all of them to reach this level.

See, this is what I don't understand. I strive to have empathy for all people. Why should I only empathize with one side of this issue?

know1

soulsinging wrote:

im ok with that. who the hell cares? it's their business not mine. personally, i think you'd be a damned fool to want to live with multiple women (let alone have multiple wives to order you around), but if they want to, i dont give a damn.

I don't care either. But I'd bet there are some people who support gay marriage that wouldn't support polygamy...even if the logic is essentially the same.

farfromglorified

know1 wrote:

I don't see it as that black and white and I'm surprised you do. As has been discussed, the motivations for actions are endless. Do you really think everyone marries for the same motivation. The most black and white you can be is to agree that it's a choice (whether that's based on certain motivations or not is far too subjective)

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying all motivations for marriage are the same. I'm saying that they all stem from the will of the person getting married and, therefore, should be recognized as valid. What I'm saying accomodates for the different reasons.

Again, if we follow that logic then we have to allow anyone to marry anybody - no matter how many that is - who will agree to marry them.

Yes! Why in God's name would I ever want to prevent you from marrying anyone?

Nickrand

It's important to understand the economic implications behind marriage, which are why the government won't get out of marriage issues anytime soon.

This article does a pretty good job at explaining them...

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2515389

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

Not sure what you mean here. Those issues cannot all be addressed on an individual contract level. What about tax benefits provided to married couples by the government? Those aren't something that are available to gay couples, regardless of the contracts they make themselves.

Of course they are. Simply get into a sham marriage for tax purposes. There's nothing preventing two gay guys from marrying two gay girls for tax reasons.

Nickrand

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course they are. Simply get into a sham marriage for tax purposes. There's nothing preventing two gay guys from marrying two gay girls for tax reasons.

Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable solution.

farfromglorified

Nickrand wrote:

Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable solution.

Why not?

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

I don't care either. But I'd bet there are some people who support gay marriage that wouldn't support polygamy...even if the logic is essentially the same.

really? i gues i've never asked, but i kinda feel the opposite.

Nickrand

farfromglorified wrote:

Sorry, that won't work. Just because some white people are idiots doesn't make me an idiot. And just because some black people are stupid doesn't make the black guy next to me stupid. And just because some straight people are violent homophobes doesn't make me one.

Isn't the whole point of these kind of issues to stop grouping individuals into vague categories and assigning bullshit attributes to them?

Again, I'm talking about power on a group level. It can exist at a higher level even if all individuals don't use that power to their advantage.

No, they don't. Homosexuals, on average, earn more than straight couples. Regardless, I do not have power over you just because I likely have more money than you do. Power is not potential, power is active.

Not talking about earning potential or the amount of money people have. I don't think you're understanding the financial and legal benefits of being married, and the solutions that you're proposing homosexuals use to overcome them are silly.

You can either have democracy or you cannot. You can't pick and choose. In a democracy, the majority always have a fundamental position of power over the minority. You cannot maintain democracy and assign minority groups additional powers than that of the majority.

I agree, but democracies aren't perfect. Majority groups should at least be aware of their influence and try to understand how it affects others.

See, this is what I don't understand. I strive to have empathy for all people. Why should I only empathize with one side of this issue?

I don't think it's possible truly to empathize with all people on an individual level. Sympathize, perhaps. Empathy requires much more effort. On a group basis, if you feel that one social group does not warrant more empathy than another after you empathize with both, then that's your decision.

Nickrand

farfromglorified wrote:

Why not?

Why should gay couples have to resort to sham marriages in order to be afforded the same legal and financial protections as married couples? What if a gay person didn't have any gay friends of the opposite sex? Why would he/she have to go out of his/her way to earn these benefits?