Gay Marriage and other problems homosexuals face

[monster]

I hope you don't mind, but I'll try responding to the first part of your post in a PM.

Originally Posted by GDB

Way to change the argument. The argument at hand here was religious sanctimony, which you maintained has always been the basis of marriage. I showed that wasn't the case until 1563. It also shows the definition has changed from being any number of people to a single person. So why is it okay that it changed before, but not now?

Because changes in the past does not excuse changes in the present or in the future. That kind of thinking may lead to change for change's sake.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monster

Because changes in the past does not excuse changes in the present or in the future. That kind of thinking may lead to change for change's sake.

So basically, it's okay because it changed to match your world views (which also are only your world views BECAUSE it changed), but once it changes in a way you don't like, it's not okay? Gotcha.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

The problem is that your solution, not only still redefines marriage, but further complicates the issue by creating a new name for it and then using that new name for a certain group of people while keeping the old name for a different group of people.

No it doesn't. Read again

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

If opponents of same-sex marriage don't want marriage to be redefined, then call it something else but treat it as equally under the law as marriage. If whatever you call it supporters agree to this, there should be no problem for opponents of same-sex marriage since whatever you call it doesn't redefine marriage; it extends equal rights.

Btw,

Originally Posted by monster

As you've noted yourself:

So, if anything, this will exacerbate the issue.

don't exclude the qualifier

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

Maybe this philosophy can be applied in an unprecedented way. Hopefully.

Same-sex couples will be treated equally as opposite-sex couples (by law, anyway), but the definition of marriage remains unchanged.

[monster]

Originally Posted by GDB

So basically, it's okay because it changed to match your world views (which also are only your world views BECAUSE it changed), but once it changes in a way you don't like, it's not okay? Gotcha.

I would think that would hold true for anyone having a consistent worldview, regardless if it's a religious worldview or not.

Do you think everyone should accept changes to marriage to allow children to be married as, I believe, has been done in some cultures?

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

Same-sex couples will be treated equally as opposite-sex couples (by law, anyway), but the definition of marriage remains unchanged.

So in what way will the two types of union be different other than the name and the fact that one involves two people of the same sex and the other involves two people of the opposite sex?

If there is no other difference, then it's no different than having two separate types of public restrooms for two separate groups of people, only calling one type of public restroom with another name. In other words, still separate but equal, but with different names.

[Kotohono]

Originally Posted by monster

Like I said, I wouldn't suggest annoying them intentionally or to constantly do it without breaks in between. But that has nothing to do with giving up either. If it's really important and if it has eternal ramification, then one lifetime here on Earth isn't a lot of effort by comparison.

Unless you're a saint you're self, you should be worrying about yourself first before you worry about judging others' life as even the Pope of all people said "If a gay person seeks God, who am I to judge him?".

Originally Posted by monster

You do realize that when you have interracial marriage you still have husband and wife. don't you? When you have interreligious marriage, you still have husband and wife. When you have same-sex marriage, you don't have husband and wife. So that's a clear redefinition of marriage in the latter part.

Those other earlier prohibitions fail without having to redefine marriage because their inequality is self-evident with respect to marriage. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage only show inequality when you no longer put meaning to having both a husband and a wife in a marriage.

That is irrelevant because the federal government of the USA never had that definition of marriage (of "husband and wife") in place in the USA Constitution, or otherwise until DOMA (which is again unconstitutional). So it isn't being redefined because it was never defined as that to begin with. Thus it is inequality and self-evident how it put the genders in "separate but equal" position.

So please stop bringing that invalid argument for the a legal construct like marriage which is not allowed to be controlled by religion under the Constitution see Separation of Church & State and Article 6.

Or I am going to have to act as mod again for your attempts to religious derail the thread with your cyclic logic and no argument given besides it.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

If opponents of same-sex marriage don't want marriage to be redefined, then call it something else but treat it as equally under the law as marriage. If whatever you call it supporters agree to this, there should be no problem for opponents of same-sex marriage since whatever you call it doesn't redefine marriage; it extends equal rights.

Historically, separate but equal has been anything but equal. Maybe this philosophy can be applied in an unprecedented way. Hopefully.

The problem there are just soooo many rights, benefits, and protections tied to Marriage, 1,138 to be exact, that recreating all of them in something else is a legal nightmare, and it's why all the attempts at "Civil Unions" were horribly off from the rights and benefits that marriage had applied to it, usually only having a few hundred at best or under a hundred at worst, thus they weren't even usually "separate but equal" but clearly inferior.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

So in what way will the two types of union be different other than the name and the fact that one involves two people of the same sex and the other involves two people of the opposite sex?

The original point argues for not changing the definition of marriage, and now the question is how the two unions will be different?

Originally Posted by monster

If there is no other difference, then it's no different than having two separate types of public restrooms for two separate groups of people, only calling one type of public restroom with another name. In other words, still separate but equal, but with different names.

You raised the point that interracial marriage (race) and same-sex marriage (sexual orientation) are different dynamics, and now you're equating race and sexuality?

Originally Posted by Konakaga

The problem there are just soooo many rights, benefits, and protections tied to Marriage, 1,138 to be exact, that recreating all of them in something else is a legal nightmare, and it's why all the attempts at "Civil Unions" were horribly off from the rights and benefits that marriage had applied to it, usually only having a few hundred at best or under a hundred at worst, thus they weren't even usually "separate but equal" but clearly inferior.

In fairness, are there any protections and rights that just can't apply to a same-sex couple? Pregnancy stuff for male-male marriages, for example

But yeah, this is more a hypothetical gauge than anything else.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Konakaga

Unless you're a saint you're self, you should be worrying about yourself first before you worry about judging others' life as even the Pope of all people said "If a gay person seeks God, who am I to judge him?".

I can only respond to this based on my religious belief, so tell me if you'll allow it in this thread.

That is irrelevant because the federal government of the USA never had that definition of marriage (of "husband and wife") in place in the USA Constitution, or otherwise until DOMA (which is again unconstitutional). So it isn't being redefined because it was never defined as that to begin with. Thus it is inequality and self-evident how it put the genders in "separate but equal" position.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe that marriage is even mentioned in the US constitution. And since homosexual relationships have existed for a long time, even prior to the US Constitution, I think it's fair to question whether or not the public has always had same-sex marriage as a valid possibility in mind. If not, then I think it's also fair to say that there has been a redefinition of marriage.

So please stop bringing that invalid argument for the a legal construct like marriage which is not allowed to be controlled by religion under the Constitution see Separation of Church & State and Article 6.

I don't think the opposition to same-sex marriage falls under just one particular religion or is even necessarily limited to adherents of any religion. So separation of church and state is probably not threatened by this.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

The original point argues for not changing the definition of marriage, and now the question is how the two unions will be different?

You raised the point that interracial marriage (race) and same-sex marriage (sexual orientation) are different dynamics, and now you're equating race and sexuality?

The point is that the name is not the real issue. For example, would a person be allowed to simultaneously be married to one person as well as be in this other kind of union to another person at the same time?

[james0246]

Have to ask, but why is it bad for marriage to be redefined? I'm not sure if it has been or not, and honestly I'm not sure if I care one way or another, but why does it matter if it has been? This isn't the first time that marriage has been redefined, nor do I doubt it will be the last time (got to allow for alien marriages at some point ), so why worry about the new defintion added to the word?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

The point is that the name is not the real issue. For example, would a person be allowed to simultaneously be married to one person as well as be in this other kind of union to another person at the same time?

I thought your contention dealt with the definition of marriage, not polygamy.

[monster]

Originally Posted by james0246

Have to ask, but why is it bad for marriage to be redefined?

Change/redefinition is not necessarily bad. It's just that how we define marriage will determine how we approach any topic relating to marriage.

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

I thought your contention dealt with the definition of marriage, not polygamy.

Polygamy is the state of being married to more than one person at the same time, and whether or not that status is considered valid is part of defining marriage.

Would you consider the situation that I just described to be an example of a polygamy?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

Polygamy is the state of being married to more than one person at the same time, and whether or not that status is considered valid is part of defining marriage.

Legal validity depends on the country's laws. Btw, same-sex marriage is legal here in America.

Originally Posted by monster

Would you consider the situation that I just described to be an example of a polygamy?

Would you consider not resorting to any kind of slippery slope.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

Legal validity depends on the country's laws. Btw, same-sex marriage is legal here in America.

I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Would you consider not resorting to any kind of slippery slope.

I'm just going with what you're proposing and showing you one situation that should be considered if your proposal were to be implemented.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

I never said otherwise, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm just going with what you're proposing and showing you one situation that should be considered if your proposal were to be implemented.

There's probably something about civil unions and polygamy somewhere that someone more informed might be able to shed some light on. That said, when I suggested calling it something else so the definition of marriage doesn't change (but still equal), that includes rights, protections, and restrictions. So no, I'm not sure what the point was of alluding to polygamy when the same trifecta is multilaterally applied.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

There's probably something about civil unions and polygamy somewhere that someone more informed might be able to shed some light on. That said, when I suggested calling it something else so the definition of marriage doesn't change (but still equal), that includes rights, protections, and restrictions. So no, I'm not sure what the point was of alluding to polygamy when the same trifecta is multilaterally applied.

In other words, what you're proposing is a change in name only. And as I have said,

Originally Posted by monster

The point is that the name is not the real issue.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

In other words, what you're proposing is a change in name only.

You brought up the contention of marriage being redefined, not me. I proposed a solution to call same-sex marriage something else but still apply the marriage laws multilaterally. You brought up the point of how to handle certain situations and I said, again, multilateral application; an unprecedented form of separate but equal.

You're right though. I'm beginning to think the real issue is not what we call it, but the apparent mental gymnastics being pulled off so that same-sex couples don't have the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

You brought up the contention of marriage being redefined, not me. I proposed a solution to call same-sex marriage something else but still apply the marriage laws multilaterally. You brought up the point of how to handle certain situations and I said, again, multilateral application; an unprecedented form of separate but equal.

You're right though. I'm beginning to think the real issue is not what we call it, but the apparent mental gymnastics being pulled off so that same-sex couples don't have the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

You misunderstood me.

Either consider marriage to be between a husband and a wife, or don't. The mental gymnastic is in trying to maintain two separate unions that you otherwise would treat equally. That just seems dishonest and overly complicated to me and, as has been said, separate but equal tended to not be equal, good intentions aside.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

You misunderstood me.

Either consider marriage to be between a husband and a wife, or don't. The mental gymnastic is in trying to maintain two separate unions that you otherwise would treat equally. That just seems dishonest and overly complicated to me and, as has been said, separate but equal tended to not be equal, good intentions aside.

You are the one who brought up (re)defining marriage as a point of contention

Originally Posted by monster

So the issue with marriage equality isn't about mere equality, but about defining what marriage is and, therefore, what factors are relevant to it to determine how one can be treated equally under the law with respect to marriage.

Originally Posted by monster

You do realize that when you have interracial marriage you still have husband and wife. don't you? When you have interreligious marriage, you still have husband and wife. When you have same-sex marriage, you don't have husband and wife. So that's a clear redefinition of marriage in the latter part.

And if you actually have no problem with marriage being between two consenting adults instead of just two consenting opposite sex adults, then what was the point of dragging this conversation?

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

You are the one who brought up (re)defining marriage as a point of contention

In terms of the issue of inequality as raised by supporters of same-sex marriage.

And if you actually have no problem with marriage being between two consenting adults instead of just two consenting opposite sex adults, then what was the point of dragging this conversation?

It's not that. I simply think your proposed solution is even worse.

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by monster

In terms of the issue of inequality as raised by supporters of same-sex marriage.

It's not that. I simply think your proposed solution is even worse.

So you don't want marriage redefined and you don't want a solution that treats them equally and doesn't redefine marriage. That is some strong intellectual dishonesty there.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Akuma Kinomoto

So you don't want marriage redefined and you don't want a solution that treats them equally and doesn't redefine marriage. That is some strong intellectual dishonesty there.

I'm not sure why you keep confusing the issue. Your proposal unnecessarily creates different labels for different groups of people while supposedly treating them equally under the law. If you don't see a problem with that, then I don't know what else to say to you.