Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

By your definition, so do the people that you all are whining about.

No. No they don't.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

No. No they don't.

So Ford should have been put out of business by the government because some people didn't want black cars?

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So Ford should have been put out of business by the government because some people didn't want black cars?

Huh? What sort of half-arsed analogy were you trying to make here? Does this shiat even make sense in your head?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Huh? What sort of half-arsed analogy were you trying to make here? Does this shiat even make sense in your head?

You're saying I have the right to marry but not the ability. How is anyone else any different?

Leave it to an ivy leaguer to shove convoluted logic down the entire country's throat...

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

You're saying I have the right to marry but not the ability. How is anyone else any different?

Because some people have the ability, but not the right. I'm sure there are plenty of gay folks who are completely repulsive to their potential partners. If they had the RIGHT to marry those partners, their situation would be analogous to yours (they'd have the right, but not the ability).

Leave it to an ivy leaguer to shove convoluted logic down the entire country's throat...

Didn't realize I had quite that big of an audience here. Then again, I wouldn't expect a trade school graduate such as yourself to understand the finer points of logic or nuance.

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Huh? What sort of half-arsed analogy were you trying to make here? Does this shiat even make sense in your head?

He's saying that gay people have the right to get married, just not necessarily the right to marry the person they desire. Whether or not you're a gay man, you still have the right to marry someone, just so long as that someone is a woman.

I've heard this argument made before, and it's just too cute by half. The other person I've heard making the argument was doing so in order to support his Catholic upbringing. IMO, it's just a defense either made to rile liberals or to stop something he finds to be "ookie".

[unofan]

Huh? What sort of half-arsed analogy were you trying to make here? Does this shiat even make sense in your head?

He's trying to pull out the "gays can marry women/lesbians can marry men just like anyone else" bit. Just like people used in the 60's for interracial marriage. "Sure blacks can get married. They can marry their own race, just like white people can."

Never mind that it didn't work then and still doesn't work now.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So I think the core decision that has to be made is whether this is a morality issue or not. That will determine the baseline of the argument.

[Priceless]

I still say if the people eating the lobster are minding their own business everyone else should leave them alone. Or get a bib and some drawn butter and join in the feast.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

He's saying that gay people have the right to get married, just not necessarily the right to marry the person they desire. Whether or not you're a gay man, you still have the right to marry someone, just so long as that someone is a woman.

I've heard this argument made before, and it's just too cute by half. The other person I've heard making the argument was doing so in order to support his Catholic upbringing. IMO, it's just a defense either made to rile liberals or to stop something he finds to be "ookie".

So you're saying everyone hasn't had the right to marry to this point? You disparage the point, yet don't refute it.

Do you work in the mainstream media or something?

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

So you're saying everyone hasn't had the right to marry to this point? You disparage the point, yet don't refute it.

Do you work in the mainstream media or something?

From a strictly logistical point of view, it's an argument to be made; anyone can get married today if they're willing to marry someone for whom they have no affection. I simply don't agree with it. I'm not religious. I was never raised in a church. So I don't hold that set of bigoted values. (From a non-religious point, everything written in Leviticus with regards to sexual congress only allows those actions between a man and his wife only at the times of month in which she's most fertile, thus leading to higher birthrates among the Jewish people should they choose to follow those rules. It's a very shrewd set of rules writing for growing political power in a world where safety in numbers was a great priority.)

Personally, I say that the Federal government removes itself from the term "marriage" and moves into strictly using the term "civil union". Then allow states to make up their minds as to what should be allowed. Eventually, those states will come around. States like MS will take a long time to come around on the finding a true state of equality, and homosexuals can then know to avoid those states should they choose to be treated like full people. And given that homosexuals have greater household incomes than straight people, the economics of such a situation will force those laggard states to catch up with the times.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

And given that homosexuals have greater household incomes than straight people

Hang on a second, I wanna see what wacky research led you to saying this one...

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Personally, I say that the Federal government removes itself from the term "marriage" and moves into strictly using the term "civil union". Then allow states to make up their minds as to what should be allowed. Eventually, those states will come around. States like MS will take a long time to come around on the finding a true state of equality, and homosexuals can then know to avoid those states should they choose to be treated like full people. And given that homosexuals have greater household incomes than straight people, the economics of such a situation will force those laggard states to catch up with the times.

Well put. What I thought I was trying to say but obviously failed in execution.

[FreshFish]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

Hang on a second, I wanna see what wacky research led you to saying this one...

nothing whacky at all, more likely just a typo. He probably meant "disposable income." few homosexuals have children and so when you look at disposable income then folks in aggregate who have few children will have more disposable incoome than folks who in aggregate do.

You can tell gays are a prime consumer market by the way advertisers are targeting them these days. They've clearly decided that getting gays to buy their products is more lucrative than the potential loss of revenue from people who will stop buying their products as a protest to the ads.

[St. Clown]

Re: Just what IS "marriage" anyway?

nothing whacky at all, just a typo. He probably meant "disposable income." few homosexuals have children and so when you look at disposable income then folks in aggregate who have few children will have more disposable incoome than folks who in aggregate do.

You can tell gays are a prime consumer market by the way advertisers are targeting them these days. They've clearly decided that getting gays to buy their products is more lucrative than the potential loss of revenue from people who will stop buying their products as a protest to the ads.

No, income. Period. I'm not going to research it at work, but the reported income values of people who report as being homosexual in surveys for a long while now have been greater than heterosexuals. While I've not seen the details, I have a theory that it's connected to, like you said, not having kids. How much income does a person lose by making time sacrifices around having children? They're able to work more, get more accomplished, and thus earn more.