Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Arkansas plans on using the back door to stop gay marriage   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 203
    More: Followup, opponents of same-sex marriage, Arkansas, Arkansas Supreme Court, Carroll County, Bible Belt, Fort Smith, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, University of Arkansas  
•       •       •

2387 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 May 2014 at 9:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



203 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-12 12:00:44 PM  

Bloody William: Age of consent and species restrictions are still pretty damn important,


Well age is, obviously - but what else?  The only restriction I can think of is incest, but even then I'm not sure two related adults shouldn't be allowed to mary.   Allowing them to procreate greatly risks their child will have genetic abnormalities, but if we are using that as justification to prevent them from marrying then maybe women over 40 shouldn't be able to get married, because having a kid after that age also greatly increases risks of birth defects...
 
2014-05-12 12:02:38 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Last thread, he was accusing me of saying all sorts of crazy stuff, but somehow couldn't actually copy and paste any of it. I think he sees things on the screen that aren't there.

Link to the crazy stuff here.


Still can't copy and paste, huh? Should we all chip in to buy you a new keyboard with a working v key?

UrukHaiGuyz: Personally, I don't think there should necessarily be restrictions on number of parties to a marriage, but in any plural marriage at least two of the parties would be same sex, so you'd have to address gay marriage universally first to even consider plural marriages in the first place.

Well that'll be the order in which it happens.  But there's no real reason we can't do both in one shot.


Yes, there is - opening marriage to same sex couples can be done by judges under the 5th and 14th amendments. Opening marriage to groups larger than two can only be done by the legislature.
It's a pedantic point, but an important one.

Theaetetus: There's also the slight problem that current statutes are written with 2 people in mind, so they have things where on the death of one, the other takes 100% title of any joint property. You'd have to change those to another default, but that's relatively easy to do.

And there are tons of scenarios where you can die with multiple equal heirs, which courts deal with just fine.


And they deal with that by following statutes crafted by the legislature. Similarly, the legislature would have to craft statutes to deal with polygamy.

Theaetetus: Frankly, I think the polygamy issue keeps getting raised as a red herring because anti-gay marriage conservatives think that progressives are all anti-polygamy, and are trying to push them into a hypocritical stance. When the answer to "why limit marriage to two" is "there's no reason to limit it, let's expand it" rather than "it's immoral" or something, they tend to run off.

And when you are wrong, you will steadfastly pretend otherwise and have absurd arguments with strawmen.


While you keep insisting I'm wrong even when I'm agreeing with you. That's why I'm pretty sure you're hallucinating.
 
2014-05-12 12:02:50 PM  

BMFPitt: UrukHaiGuyz: Personally, I don't think there should necessarily be restrictions on number of parties to a marriage, but in any plural marriage at least two of the parties would be same sex, so you'd have to address gay marriage universally first to even consider plural marriages in the first place.


Well that'll be the order in which it happens.  But there's no real reason we can't do both in one shot.


There is, and it's the same reason we didn't address same sex marriage at the same time as anti-miscegenation laws were being struck down. Social progress is always held back by the more conservative elements of society, and it takes time to bring them on board for any expansion of the equal application of laws. You gotta fight for every little piece of ground and then hold it until the next less bigoted generation comes along to tackle new challenges.
 
2014-05-12 12:02:51 PM  

lilplatinum: Bloody William: Age of consent and species restrictions are still pretty damn important,

Well age is, obviously - but what else?  The only restriction I can think of is incest, but even then I'm not sure two related adults shouldn't be allowed to mary.   Allowing them to procreate greatly risks their child will have genetic abnormalities, but if we are using that as justification to prevent them from marrying then maybe women over 40 shouldn't be able to get married, because having a kid after that age also greatly increases risks of birth defects...


Species, until we find another species with which we can directly communicate using the same concepts and abstractions we use between different languages. And incest... is also a sticky point, because I believe research has found that the danger of genetic abnormalities is actually very low case by case, but can be a big problem if it's done consistently over a bloodline. Like, several generations to get everything all Habsburged.
 
2014-05-12 12:03:31 PM  

qorkfiend: Which part of this stance do you believe is wrong?


What stance?  You mean mine that says we should expand it, or the strawman one?
 
2014-05-12 12:04:22 PM  

Bloody William: And incest... is also a sticky point


Giggity
 
2014-05-12 12:04:25 PM  

Bloody William: Theaetetus: Frankly, I think the polygamy issue keeps getting raised as a red herring because anti-gay marriage conservatives think that progressives are all anti-polygamy, and are trying to push them into a hypocritical stance. When the answer to "why limit marriage to two" is "there's no reason to limit it, let's expand it" rather than "it's immoral" or something, they tend to run off.

There is an important reason that has nothing to do with morality: logistics. Marriage is currently between two parties, and handling disputes between two parties regarding property and access rights if that agreement is dissolved is ugly, but has several general guidelines that make the two party structure relatively clean. Add more parties, you have more potential for disputes between who gets what and much less realistic answers in the form of "split the property in half" and "grant primary custody to this person."


Prior paragraph:
There's also the slight problem that current statutes are written with 2 people in mind, so they have things where on the death of one, the other takes 100% title of any joint property. You'd have to change those to another default, but that's relatively easy to do.

We're in agreement.
 
2014-05-12 12:05:04 PM  

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: Which part of this stance do you believe is wrong?

What stance?  You mean mine that says we should expand it, or the strawman one?


Let's assume that I was referring to the section you copied and pasted into your response, that I in turn responded to.
 
2014-05-12 12:05:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Bloody William: Theaetetus: Frankly, I think the polygamy issue keeps getting raised as a red herring because anti-gay marriage conservatives think that progressives are all anti-polygamy, and are trying to push them into a hypocritical stance. When the answer to "why limit marriage to two" is "there's no reason to limit it, let's expand it" rather than "it's immoral" or something, they tend to run off.

There is an important reason that has nothing to do with morality: logistics. Marriage is currently between two parties, and handling disputes between two parties regarding property and access rights if that agreement is dissolved is ugly, but has several general guidelines that make the two party structure relatively clean. Add more parties, you have more potential for disputes between who gets what and much less realistic answers in the form of "split the property in half" and "grant primary custody to this person."

Prior paragraph:
There's also the slight problem that current statutes are written with 2 people in mind, so they have things where on the death of one, the other takes 100% title of any joint property. You'd have to change those to another default, but that's relatively easy to do.

We're in agreement.


I'm not disagreeing with anyone in the thread currently. I'm confused what the argument's about.
 
2014-05-12 12:05:21 PM  

Bloody William: Species, until we find another species with which we can directly communicate using the same concepts and abstractions we use between different languages.


Well yeah, there is that.  I mean, I guess I'd be open for someone marrying their dog but that seems to be more of a property rights issue...
 
2014-05-12 12:06:41 PM  

lilplatinum: The only restriction I can think of is incest, but even then I'm not sure two related adults shouldn't be allowed to mary.   Allowing them to procreate greatly risks their child will have genetic abnormalities, but if we are using that as justification to prevent them from marrying then maybe women over 40 shouldn't be able to get married, because having a kid after that age also greatly increases risks of birth defects...


Yeah, marriage and procreation aren't related though (even though they do frequently travel in conjunction). Couples - even incestuous ones - can have kids without needing a marriage certificate; and couples can be married without ever having kids.

The reason to keep relatives from marrying is that it would allow for line marriages between grandparents and grandchildren, allowing large estates to pass inheritance free, and creating an aristocracy.
 
2014-05-12 12:11:46 PM  

qorkfiend: Let's assume that I was referring to the section you copied and pasted into your response, that I in turn responded to.


So...you want me to explain why I disagree with...myself?
 
2014-05-12 12:15:31 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Last thread, he was accusing me of saying all sorts of crazy stuff, but somehow couldn't actually copy and paste any of it. I think he sees things on the screen that aren't there.

Link to the crazy stuff here.


OK, I control-f for his name though about half of that link, and I'm still not seeing "the crazy".
Can you be more specific?
 
2014-05-12 12:17:59 PM  

BMFPitt: qorkfiend: Let's assume that I was referring to the section you copied and pasted into your response, that I in turn responded to.

So...you want me to explain why I disagree with...myself?


Then why did you post it with a snarky comment about strawmen?
 
2014-05-12 12:40:29 PM  

Karac: OK, I control-f for his name though about half of that link, and I'm still not seeing "the crazy".
Can you be more specific?


Basically every response to me or RyansPrivates wherein he kept insisting that by saying we wanted to open up the benefits of marriage to people other than couples in romantic relationships, somehow that meant we wanted to ban gay marriage.  See this highlight where I state that the Venn diagram of people eligible for the more generic civil union and people who could be legally married was a circle, and he demanded that I was wrong about my own policy proposal.

qorkfiend: Then why did you post it with a snarky comment about strawmen?


Because the you appeared to be implying that my stance was the second bolded strawman text, rather the first bolded text.

When the answer to "why limit marriage to two" is "there's no reason to limit it, let's expand it" rather than "it's immoral" or something, they tend to run off.
 
2014-05-12 12:52:40 PM  

BMFPitt: Basically every response to me or RyansPrivates wherein he kept insisting that by saying we wanted to open up the benefits of marriage to people other than couples in romantic relationships, somehow that meant we wanted to ban gay marriage. See this highlight where I state that the Venn diagram of people eligible for the more generic civil union and people who could be legally married was a circle, and he demanded that I was wrong about my own policy proposal.


In that highly, you are quoted as proposing "an alternative" which would allow heterosexuals to use the word married, and restrict homosexuals to some other named institution which would be separate but equal.

I do no see how you can logically claim to not be against gay marriage when you clearly state that you do not think gays should be allowed access to "marriage".

And you are completely wrong that a Venn diagram of people eligible for civil unions and people who can get married is a circle, for the simple reason that more than a few states outlaw gay civil unions or civil unions completely.  How can a Venn diagram of "heterosexuals" and "nobody" be a single circle?
 
2014-05-12 12:53:33 PM  

BMFPitt: Basically every response to me or RyansPrivates wherein he kept insisting that by saying we wanted to open up the benefits of marriage to people other than couples in romantic relationships, somehow that meant we wanted to ban gay marriage.  See this highlight where I state that the Venn diagram of people eligible for the more generic civil union and people who could be legally married was a circle, and he demanded that I was wrong about my own policy proposal.


From what I saw in the link, you've yet to explain why gays have to get "civil unions" when they can just get married, short of some vague appeal to history or something.
 
2014-05-12 12:54:03 PM  

BMFPitt: Karac: OK, I control-f for his name though about half of that link, and I'm still not seeing "the crazy".
Can you be more specific?

Basically every response to me or RyansPrivates wherein he kept insisting that by saying we wanted to open up the benefits of marriage to people other than couples in romantic relationships...


"I would also like to replace government sanctioned marriage with civil unions"

Your proposal was to open the  benefits of marriage to everyone, but deny them the name "marriage". I merely asked why. And here was your answer:
Me: And if not, if there are no differences between the eligible groups, and no difference in the rights granted, then  why create a new institution with a new name, when "marriage"already covers it?
You: Because marriage already describes a certain type of relationship.  That's why we have different words for things, to convey information.
 
2014-05-12 12:55:57 PM  

Karac: And you are completely wrong that a Venn diagram of people eligible for civil unions and people who can get married is a circle, for the simple reason that more than a few states outlaw gay civil unions or civil unions completely.  How can a Venn diagram of "heterosexuals" and "nobody" be a single circle?


I believe that he meant that under his proposal, everyone would be eligible for civil unions, rather than a reflection of the current situation.

Still doesn't answer the question of why we can't just use the term "marriage" and be done with it.
 
2014-05-12 01:07:05 PM  

Karac: In that highly, you are quoted as proposing "an alternative" which would allow heterosexuals to use the word married, and restrict homosexuals to some other named institution which would be separate but equal.

I do no see how you can logically claim to not be against gay marriage when you clearly state that you do not think gays should be allowed access to "marriage".

imgs.xkcd.com


Can you point out where I clearly state any such thing?  I'd be happy to point out many instances where I clearly state the exact opposite if you'd like.

And you are completely wrong that a Venn diagram of people eligible for civil unions and people who can get married is a circle, for the simple reason that more than a few states outlaw gay civil unions or civil unions completely.  How can a Venn diagram of "heterosexuals" and "nobody" be a single circle?

Can you elaborate how I can be wrong about MY OWN PROPOSAL?

grumpfuff: From what I saw in the link, you've yet to explain why gays have to get "civil unions" when they can just get married, short of some vague appeal to history or something.


For the same reason I have yet to explain why the sky is purple?

Theaetetus: Your proposal was to open the  benefits of marriage to everyone, but deny them the name "marriage"


Please explain why having a generic umbrella term used in law that includes marriage as well as other relationships denies anyone anything.
 
2014-05-12 01:10:25 PM  

BMFPitt: Can you elaborate how I can be wrong about MY OWN PROPOSAL?


Why make your proposal so wildly impractical though, if the goal is to accomplish equal rights? What's to be gained by adding an extra unnecessary legal classification when you can just grant rights in one go?
 
2014-05-12 01:14:00 PM  
BMFPitt, you've spent a lot of time in that thread and this one denying our interpretation of your proposal, and repeatedly saying what your proposal  isn't.
Let's simplify... What  are you proposing exactly, since no one else apparently understands?
Under your proposal:
Can gay couples get "married"?
Can straight couples get "married"?
Who can get "civilly unionized"?
Are there any differences between:
(a) the group that's eligible for marriage and the group that's eligible for civil unions;
(b) the rights and privileges of marriage and the rights and privileges of civil unions; or
(c) the process for getting a civil union and the process for getting married?

Rather than just insisting that we're all wrong about what you're saying, tell us what you're saying.
 
2014-05-12 01:14:38 PM  

hubiestubert: One uptick with the UUs, is that they are one of fastest growing denominations in Massachusetts, thanks to their stand on marriage equality. Fundies are driving folks into the arms of the UUs, and that is endlessly amusing to me.


I'm an atheist, married to a Buddhist, and our son is gay. UU is a perfect fit for us.  Besides marriage equality, it's cool to be around a community of progressive people here in Texas.  We do things like offer our kids comprehensive sex ed classes, and this summer's children's programs focuses on evolution. We celebrate Darwin Day.

We asked to be included in our community's National Day of Prayer a few years back, and were told it was for Christians only, even though it takes place on our historic Courthouse Square.  This year, thanks in part to the leadership of our Rev., we had a separate, well attended  interfaith service: Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Bahai, Pagan, UU, Methodist, Catholic...awesome, even for a non-praying atheist like myself.

As to Arkansas, I'll be delighted when marriage equality becomes the law of the Ozarks. My husband and I eloped there 21 years ago and got hitched under "The Weddin' Tree." Even thought the tree's gone now, it'd be nice for our son to be able to have that freedom too.

tinfoil-hat maggie: hubiestubert: There's the Unitarian-Universalists too. The Atheist vs Theists softball games are fun...

Unitarian was the last church I went to I probably should try it again but worshiping St. Mattress on Sunday's is nice.


We generally roll in a couple of minutes late for the 11:30 service...lol...zzzzzzzz...

/gonna have to see about organizing one of those softball games
//peace out, y'all
///3horn...whatever happened to him?
 
2014-05-12 01:18:54 PM  

BMFPitt: Karac: In that highly, you are quoted as proposing "an alternative" which would allow heterosexuals to use the word married, and restrict homosexuals to some other named institution which would be separate but equal.

I do no see how you can logically claim to not be against gay marriage when you clearly state that you do not think gays should be allowed access to "marriage".

[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

Can you point out where I clearly state any such thing?  I'd be happy to point out many instances where I clearly state the exact opposite if you'd like.

Sure.  Not a problem.


We aren't changing marriage.  At all.  We are creating a superset of relationships which we would like to be treated by the state the same way that marriage is currently.  For the sake of simplicity, we are giving this superset a name, rather than listing all the individual possible combinations in any legislation that refers to it.

You don't think gays should be allowed to "marry".  You think they should instead "civil union".  Which is a separate institution from marriage, and a simple reading of the laws from any of dozens of states will show that they are not equal.

My opinion, and that of Theaetetus is that gays should be allowed access to the current marriage laws.  You have some other plan which would restrict them to some other arrangement and not be allowed to "marry".  You are logically therefore against gays being allowed to marry.

You are of course, cite someplace where you have stated that gays should be allowed to engage in marriages and not some other "alternative".
 
2014-05-12 01:23:32 PM  
PocketfullaSass:
///3horn...whatever happened to him?

Still here...
 
2014-05-12 01:30:44 PM  
BMFPitt:

Why do we need to create a whole new legal term and such? Why not just say gays can get married? It's cheaper, easier, simpler, and more efficient.
 
2014-05-12 01:33:55 PM  

verbaltoxin: tinfoil-hat maggie: worshiping St. Mattress on Sunday's is nice.

I'm stealing that. Consider it stolen. For Our Lady of Serta Sleep Numbers.


I stole from a cool lady I knew so feel free.
 
2014-05-12 01:34:50 PM  
I'll tell you what BMF.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Can you explain, right here and now, in simple terms, why we shouldn't simply strike down the "gays can't get married" laws and amendments, which would allow them to get married under the current system the exact same way straights can, and instead repeal all the marriage laws and enact your 'civil union' idea.

What is the benefit of doing it your way?  Because I got to tell you, even if you are in favor of gay marriage, adding so many complications and loopholes and new terminology into the matter instead of taking the easy route makes it look for all the world like you're trying damn hard to pull a fast one.
 
2014-05-12 01:35:13 PM  

PocketfullaSass: We generally roll in a couple of minutes late for the 11:30 service...lol...zzzzzzzz...

/gonna have to see about organizing one of those softball games
//peace out, y'all
///3horn...whatever happened to him?


Cool good to know.
 
2014-05-12 01:35:32 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Why make your proposal so wildly impractical though, if the goal is to accomplish equal rights? What's to be gained by adding an extra unnecessary legal classification when you can just grant rights in one go?


So you think that drastically changing marriage law is easy, but the real hang up is nomenclature?  I'd be happy to skip that part if I could get the rest.  Seems pretty unlikely, though.

Theaetetus: BMFPitt, you've spent a lot of time in that thread and this one denying our interpretation of your proposal, and repeatedly saying what your proposal  isn't.
Let's simplify... What  are you proposing exactly, since no one else apparently understands?
Under your proposal:
Can gay couples get "married"?


Yes.

Can straight couples get "married"?

Yes.

Who can get "civilly unionized"?

"
any combination of consenting adults"

Are there any differences between:
(a) the group that's eligible for marriage and the group that's eligible for civil unions;
(b) the rights and privileges of marriage and the rights and privileges of civil unions; or
(c) the process for getting a civil union and the process for getting married?


No.

Rather than just insisting that we're all wrong about what you're saying, tell us what you're saying.

All of that is well covered already, so I have no belief that you will suddenly comprehend it.

Karac: You don't think gays should be allowed to "marry".


Absolutely false.

You think they should instead "civil union".  Which is a separate institution from marriage, and a simple reading of the laws from any of dozens of states will show that they are not equal.

Which is why I explicitly stated that there should only be one term used in law.

My opinion, and that of Theaetetus is that gays should be allowed access to the current marriage laws.  You have some other plan which would restrict them to some other arrangement and not be allowed to "marry".  You are logically therefore against gays being allowed to marry.

Your opinion is based on inserting your own fantasy into my text.

You are of course, cite someplace where you have stated that gays should be allowed to engage in marriages and not some other "alternative".

Probably at least a dozen times in this thread, not to mention the other one.
 
2014-05-12 01:38:31 PM  

grumpfuff: Why do we need to create a whole new legal term and such? Why not just say gays can get married? It's cheaper, easier, simpler, and more efficient.


That battle is already over.  We won.  At this point we're just wiping out the last stubborn holdouts.

My proposal is for the next battle, to get full equality.
 
2014-05-12 01:39:23 PM  

BMFPitt: So you think that drastically changing marriage law is easy, but the real hang up is nomenclature? I'd be happy to skip that part if I could get the rest. Seems pretty unlikely, though


It's not a drastic change.  You just take a state amendment that says gays can't get married, and you overturn it as being unconstitutional.  Bam!  Done!

Your plan on the other hand, is as far as I can tell, to completely rewrite every law on the books which includes the word "marriage".  Why do you think your plan is the easier or less drastic of the two.  What benefit does your plan have over simply repealing the laws which state gays can't access the current system?
 
2014-05-12 01:41:07 PM  

BMFPitt: UrukHaiGuyz: Why make your proposal so wildly impractical though, if the goal is to accomplish equal rights? What's to be gained by adding an extra unnecessary legal classification when you can just grant rights in one go?

So you think that drastically changing marriage law is easy, but the real hang up is nomenclature?  I'd be happy to skip that part if I could get the rest.  Seems pretty unlikely, though.


It's not changing marriage laws at all, merely to whom they apply. It would be as simple as a Supreme Court decision- no extra laws, terms, bureaucracy, or infrastructure required. Your proposal is a solution in search of a problem, which probably explains a lot of the skepticism about your motives expressed in this and the linked thread.
 
2014-05-12 01:41:34 PM  

BMFPitt: Which is why I explicitly stated that there should only be one term used in law.


... and that term is "Civil Union" in your proposal, right?

Just being clear, because you say this:

BMFPitt: So you think that drastically changing marriage law is easy, but the real hang up is nomenclature?  I'd be happy to skip that part if I could get the rest.

... so it seems like you acknowledge that the nomenclature change is part of your proposal.

Just to be absolutely crystal clear - in your proposal, there's one institution under law, open to any combination of consenting adults, and providing all of the benefits that marriage currently provides... but it's not called "marriage". Right?
 
2014-05-12 01:43:37 PM  

Karac: It's not a drastic change.  You just take a state amendment that says gays can't get married, and you overturn it as being unconstitutional.  Bam!  Done!

Your plan on the other hand, is as far as I can tell, to completely rewrite every law on the books which includes the word "marriage".  Why do you think your plan is the easier or less drastic of the two.  What benefit does your plan have over simply repealing the laws which state gays can't access the current system?


What does my proposal have to do with laws against gay marriage?  The few that remain well be gone in a few years, at the most.
 
2014-05-12 01:45:36 PM  

BMFPitt: Karac: It's not a drastic change.  You just take a state amendment that says gays can't get married, and you overturn it as being unconstitutional.  Bam!  Done!

Your plan on the other hand, is as far as I can tell, to completely rewrite every law on the books which includes the word "marriage".  Why do you think your plan is the easier or less drastic of the two.  What benefit does your plan have over simply repealing the laws which state gays can't access the current system?

What does my proposal have to do with laws against gay marriage?  The few that remain well be gone in a few years, at the most.


It has something to do with gay marriage because you're proposing it as an alternative to simply allowing gays to get married.
 
2014-05-12 01:46:23 PM  

Theaetetus: Just to be absolutely crystal clear - in your proposal, there's one institution under law, open to any combination of consenting adults, and providing all of the benefits that marriage currently provides... but it's not called "marriage". Right?


Correct.

I would assume that 99.9% of the time it would be married people, but it would be open to others as well.
 
2014-05-12 01:48:29 PM  

Karac: It has something to do with gay marriage because you're proposing it as an alternative to simply allowing gays to get married.


Except for the fact that I'm not.  I really have no idea why you are convinced otherwise.
 
2014-05-12 01:48:51 PM  

3horn: PocketfullaSass:
///3horn...whatever happened to him?

Still here...


*Waves*

/end threadjack
 
2014-05-12 01:52:38 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Just to be absolutely crystal clear - in your proposal, there's one institution under law, open to any combination of consenting adults, and providing all of the benefits that marriage currently provides... but it's not called "marriage". Right?

Correct.

I would assume that 99.9% of the time it would be married people, but it would be open to others as well.


So, in other words, in your proposal, a gay couple couldn't have a marriage certificate. No one could. They could have a civil union certificate, but this would be the end of "marriage" as a legal institution.  Everyone would be equal*... because no one could get "married", not just the gays.

*Well, not equal to their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents who were all married... because gay people wanted that name too, so now we have to destroy it.
 
2014-05-12 01:58:44 PM  

Theaetetus: So, in other words, in your proposal, a gay couple couldn't have a marriage certificate. No one could. They could have a civil union certificate, but this would be the end of "marriage" as a legal institution.  Everyone would be equal*... because no one could get "married", not just the gays.


And just as I pointed out before, the fact that "legal guardian" is a term doesn't mean there is no such thing as a "parent".  And of course, just as I have said, if you want to refer to a group of platonic friends who choose to enter such an arrangement as "married" as a condition of giving them rights, I can live with that if you are so attached to the idea.
 
2014-05-12 02:02:46 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: So, in other words, in your proposal, a gay couple couldn't have a marriage certificate. No one could. They could have a civil union certificate, but this would be the end of "marriage" as a legal institution.  Everyone would be equal*... because no one could get "married", not just the gays.

And just as I pointed out before, the fact that "legal guardian" is a term doesn't mean there is no such thing as a "parent".  And of course, just as I have said, if you want to refer to a group of platonic friends who choose to enter such an arrangement as "married" as a condition of giving them rights, I can live with that if you are so attached to the idea.


You may be amazed to hear about this, but the definitions of "legal guardian" and "parent" are not the same.  You can be a legal guardian for someone without being their parent, and you can be a parent without being a legal guardian.  They are two terms which are separate and not equal.
 
2014-05-12 02:04:24 PM  

Karac: You may be amazed to hear about this, but the definitions of "legal guardian" and "parent" are not the same.  You can be a legal guardian for someone without being their parent, and you can be a parent without being a legal guardian.  They are two terms which are separate and not equal.


Wow.  It's as if that very reason was why I specified one term in law.
 
2014-05-12 02:04:31 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: So, in other words, in your proposal, a gay couple couldn't have a marriage certificate. No one could. They could have a civil union certificate, but this would be the end of "marriage" as a legal institution.  Everyone would be equal*... because no one could get "married", not just the gays.

And just as I pointed out before, the fact that "legal guardian" is a term doesn't mean there is no such thing as a "parent".


It's not a good analogy:  "Legal guardian" and "parent" areboth legal terms, and have different scope: it is possible to be a legal guardian without being a parent; yourproposal was that there would only beone legal term for this institution we're discussing, "civil union".

And of course, just as I have said, if you want to refer to a group of platonic friends who choose to enter such an arrangement as "married" as a condition of giving them rights, I can live with that if you are so attached to the idea.

Yes, we are rather attached to the idea that gay couples should be able to call themselves legally "married". It's that whole equality and justice thing, you see.
 
2014-05-12 02:06:36 PM  

BMFPitt: Karac: You may be amazed to hear about this, but the definitions of "legal guardian" and "parent" are not the same.  You can be a legal guardian for someone without being their parent, and you can be a parent without being a legal guardian.  They are two terms which are separate and not equal.

Wow.  It's as if that very reason was why I specified one term in law.


... but not "marriage".

Because you'd rather rewrite thousands of statutes than let gay people call themselves legally married.
 
2014-05-12 02:07:02 PM  
Maybe if the people against gay marriage had some kind of codified ethics to teach them how to be nice to people? Like a book? Sucks that all they have is the Bible./Fark Religion
 
2014-05-12 02:08:24 PM  

Theaetetus: Yes, we are rather attached to the idea that gay couples should be able to call themselves legally "married". It's that whole equality and justice thing, you see.


Me too.
 
2014-05-12 02:11:15 PM  
You know, with BMFPitt's analogy to "legal guardian" vs. "parent" and their separate use because they refer to different things, and the fact that when asked why his proposed institution shouldn't be called "marriage", he said this:
Because marriage already describes a certain type of relationship.  That's why we have different words for things, to convey information.
... it makes you wonder if he doesn't believe that gay couples can have that "certain type of relationship" that we call "marriage".
 
2014-05-12 02:11:17 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Yes, we are rather attached to the idea that gay couples should be able to call themselves legally "married". It's that whole equality and justice thing, you see.

Me too.


Except that you seem to want to limit that term to being applied on the basis of whether or not you're friends with someone than as a matter of law.
 
2014-05-12 02:12:35 PM  

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Yes, we are rather attached to the idea that gay couples should be able to call themselves legally "married".

Me too.


... he says, after saying that no one should be able to call themselves legally "married".
 
Displayed 50 of 203 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report