Originally Posted By DAR <<But have little tolerance of stereotypical conservative rhetoric.> I feel the same way about sterotypical liberal rhetoric.>> And don't get me started on stereotypical moderate rhetoric.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Those aren't rights. those are benefits that society grants to those who qualify for the contract.*** Please explain the qualifications, then.
Originally Posted By DAR Here's a question aside from some very obvious public displays of affection if one were to see two men or two women together how would you gage if they are a couple or just friends hanging out while there spouses aren't around?
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<how would you gage if they are a couple or just friends hanging out while there spouses aren't around?>> How would it be any different than if a male and female were hanging out together? How would you know, without any obvious PDA, whether they were just friends or not?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Even the ultra-conservative WSJ ran a pro-gay marriage editorial today. <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906051568695003.html?mod=article-outset-box" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...tset-box</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh The WSJ runs liberal opinion articles all the time. They have at least one liberal columnist on staff.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <And I'm entirely sure that the not having to testify against your spouse in court is a "right" not a benefit. (As ONE example)> Exactly right. I don't think even Doug can deny that one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <There are all sorts of marriages I don't like, but am "forced" to enter into contracts with (using your definition of marriage being in part a contract with society). I don't like abusive marriages, or marriages where people have children and then don't take care of them, or when two partners are very young and unready for the responsibility, or certain celebrity marriages or any number of others.> Also exactly right. We are indeed "forced" to recognize those marriages. People who didn't like interracial marriages in 1967 (or today, for that matter, and those people still exist) are still "forced" to recognize those marriages. Oh, the horror. <So using your definition of the marriage contract, I am forced to enter into contracts on a daily basis. How would you remedy that?> Doug was then reduced to "It's not my fault that you can't come up with workable definitions." The irony of that is really kind of stunning. Doug seems to be saying that "through the legislative process" we could come up with "workable definitions" to disallow certain straight marriages. Let's say abusive ones, or ones where they don't take care of their kids, or they're not ready for the responsibility. But who would decide that? Who would determine if there was sufficient abuse to end the marriage (as opposed to arresting the abuser) or whether the kids were so ill-taken care of that the marriage would have to end (as opposed to going into foster care for a while or for good), or if the young people, though of legal age, weren't ready for the responsibility? How would you determine that, and who would determine it? It would have to be the government. That would be MORE intrusive government, making decisions in our personal lives, something conservatives normally say they oppose (though in practice, don't always, especially with regard to personal decisions, a la Terry Schiavo.) And don't get me started on infidelity, which 2oony didn't mention, but is another obvious one. It can be grounds for divorce, yet we do not require divorce if it happens, even if it happens constantly. In the real world, straight people have the freedom to marry the person of their choice, and to stay married indefinitely as long as both parties wish to. No matter how bad a marriage society may deem it. Any alteration of that, any finding "workable definitions" of what to disallow, would be a reduction of Americans' freedom. Again, the irony is kind of stunning.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As for the whole concept of encouraging stability by encouraging marriage, here's a simple question: why should that not apply to gay citizens as well? A certain percentage of our citizens are inherently gay. This is something we did not realize when the marriage laws were written. We knew of homosexual activity, but not of inherent homosexuality. We know better now, but the laws have not (yet) changed to recognize that. We gay citizens exist. We're here and we're queer, to coin a phrase. So given that we're here, not going anywhere, and ostensibly equal citizens, why should the US not encourage stable relationships among its gay citizens, as it does with its straight ones? Most of us don't raise kids, but some of us do, and it's a red herring anyway, since straight couples are not required to do so, and we allow marriage to millions of couples past child-bearing age. We honor those childless marriages for their own sake, and because we want to encourage stable relationships. We say that in itself is a benefit to society, quite apart from children. Why should we not encourage the same stability among our gay citizens?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Thomas Frank. They used to have Al Hunt. > This was written by neither one. The Iowa court put it beautifully. "We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."
Originally Posted By ecdc >>As for the whole concept of encouraging stability by encouraging marriage, here's a simple question: why should that not apply to gay citizens as well?<< Because they're relationships aren't as beneficial to society. Keep up, Dabob! Douglas' circular logic was quite clear on that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Even by that logic, it's illogical. First of all, it's impossible to quantify. Second, even if you did and determined that they're not "as" valuable as straight ones, presumably stable gay relationships are more valuable than unstable ones. So it would make sense to encourage them.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This was written by neither one.> As I said earlier, the WSJ runs liberal opinion articles all the time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas' circular logic was quite clear on that.> My arguments are both linear and logical.
