We Should Be Ashamed Of Our Hatred -mature Content!

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1790343' date='Feb 24 2009, 09:54 AM']im going to be especially blunt here. I'm sick and tired of people who fight tooth and nail for gay rights only to duck and twist at the prospect of other forms of marriage becoming legal too. When polygamy is brought up, they just write off the idea as absurd. No, what is absurd is someone fighting for equal rights and then putting limits on it.

If you are fighting for equal marriage rights know that you [i]have to be open to every form of marriage[/i] not just the one you are fighting for. And you have to be for these forms of marriage [i]right now[/i]. Not in some possible slippery sloped future, but right. now.

polygyny, polyandry, polyamory, bigamy, circle marriages, incestual marriages, human-animal marraiges...

I mean, seriously, if religious and personal opinions do not matter (something christians are told all too constantly), who the hell are you to say these marriages arnt marriages, or arnt equal to other forms of marriage?

Is this making sense yet? If the argument is 'equal rights'. Then its all or nothing or youre just as bad as "us".

So whats the problem with this? It means the government must recognize any and all forms of marriage, past, present and future. Whatever anyone can come up with. Essentially, this will mean the government will be handing out these rights to basically everyone. Aside from being a joke, it raises the question that no one in this debate is asking - why does the government even give out these rights to married people in the first place?? Why not just give them to everyone from the start? or the reverse - why not just not give them out and shut everyone up?

Either all forms of marriage are equal - and thus no one is special, or a particular definition of marriage [i]is[/i] important to society, and needs to be encouraged above the rest. Can those in favor of gay marriage come up with a reason? Those in favor of traditional marriage can.


ps: im sick of all this hate nonsense. to disagree with a political view is not hate. A person can disagree with a form of marriage and still like a person.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
i'd like to see an actual response of Sirklawd's points.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
and i'm moving this to the Debate Table

[track2004]

[quote name='BG45' post='1790619' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:46 PM']If I might also add something? I've always considered marriage to also be a covenant relationship that exceeds that of a simple contract; as you were saying it has a religious origin.[/quote]

The law doesn't care about your covenant though, just the contract. I know that the Church won't approve. I know that most religious institutions won't approve. I don't need them to. I need the federal government to. God is God and the State is the State. God can have covenants; the State has contracts. Whether my wife and I have a covenant relationship (under God) should be unrelated to whether we can get hitched (under law).

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='track2004' post='1790625' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:53 PM']Slavery has a religious origin. The death penalty has a religious origin. We changed those rules; we can change this one. It is of value to society. It is of value to me and I want it.

But I [b]cannot[/b] enter into the contract. And part of me doesn't care if it is called marriage (part of me does because it means something to my mother). I'm not free to enter into the contract. I can't because of your rules. And I'm looking to change them. And as we go society is on my side. God can say what he wants and you can say what you want, but contract law doesn't care.[/quote]

Slavery doesn 't have a religious origin and neither does the death penalty. Slavery is the result of one nation conquering another, and making a profit from the victory. The death penalty is a result of man's nature: an eye for an eye ruled all societies. Jewish and Christian societies made rules to soften these activities.

You can enter into any contract you wish another person, on anything you want within contract law.
It simply won't be a marriage. Marriage is a relationship between two different "others". A same sex union is just that - the same. There is no "other" in the relationship. Your brains and bodies are the same, there is not the possiblity of creating a "whole" - you are two identical parts side by side. Its not the rules that are the problem, they simply reflect reality, its the nature of being human beings.

[rkwright]

There are contracts that are not allowed by law. If you want to pitch this in purely contractual terms, the freedom of contract for two homosexuals to marry has been outlawed - and thats the will of the people. Thats how a democracy works.

[rkwright]

[quote name='track2004' post='1790618' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:46 PM']And beyond that, there is something inherently dangerous about a democracy: that the majority rules, sometimes at a great cost to minorities. Just because 51% of people agree doesn't mean it is right or fair. The role of government is to protect [i]all[/i] of it's people. Look, whole Wiki article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/url] .[/quote]

The government protects the rights secured in the constitution. Since your pitching this as freedom to contract... well honestly I don't know what the standard to restrict a contract is. It must not be that high because contracts are outlawed all the time. If the state can outlaw contracts for sex, then its not very far from saying the state can outlaw contracts for marriage.

[track2004]

To Cmom

The laws surrounding slavery and the death penalty come from religion. The laws we changed. The body part discussion and what goes where to make babies isn't what we're talking about. I'm talking about contractual law, about whether I have the right to get married or whether I should. Marriage law doesn't care if you and your partner can make babies. Traditional marriage law let old people and barren people marry and you have to be really close to God to get around that, traditionally.

And to rkwright

You're right there are contracts you can't make, but there aren't many. I can't sell you a baby. I can't hire you to kill someone. I can't enter into a contract that will require you to do something illegal. I'm reasonably sure what gay couples do doesn't qualify under those categories.

I'm arguing that gay marriage is consistent with current contract law. I'm arguing that your religious beliefs shouldn't define contract law. Gay marriage wasn't outlawed, per se, there was a preemptive strike against it. It hasn't been legal*. Democracy woks by changing and adapting to new ideas and new understandings of the world. Democracy will follow me on this issue, whether I win this argument on PM or not.


*It was legal here for a minute and now it's not for a minute, but that will change. As far as I know we are the only place is was then it wasn't.

[rkwright]

[quote name='track2004' post='1790682' date='Feb 24 2009, 06:28 PM']And to rkwright

You're right there are contracts you can't make, but there aren't many. I can't sell you a baby. I can't hire you to kill someone. I can't enter into a contract that will require you to do something illegal. I'm reasonably sure what gay couples do doesn't qualify under those categories.

I'm arguing that gay marriage is consistent with current contract law. I'm arguing that your religious beliefs shouldn't define contract law. Gay marriage wasn't outlawed, per se, there was a preemptive strike against it. It hasn't been legal*. Democracy woks by changing and adapting to new ideas and new understandings of the world. Democracy will follow me on this issue, whether I win this argument on PM or not.


*It was legal here for a minute and now it's not for a minute, but that will change. As far as I know we are the only place is was then it wasn't.[/quote]

Two thing. First while gay marriage does not fit into any of those categories, it fits well into the "contracts against public policy" group.

Second I think its interesting you say democracy will follow you, because it didn't. It was put up to a vote and you lost. Democracy adapted to the new idea of legalizing gay marriage and said 'no'. Religious beliefs don't define contract law, people do - and the people have spoken.

[track2004]

I don't really think we're "against public policy." There is an argument we'd do better for public policy because we'd buy stuff and raise kids.

It didn't once. It didn't here. It was put to a vote and we lost by 2%. Don't think that is some impressive victory for you. Funny thing is that the people get to speak every few years and they change their minds.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1790627' date='Feb 24 2009, 03:55 PM']+J.M.J.+
i'd like to see an actual response of Sirklawd's points. [/quote]
+J.M.J.+
yeah, me too.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1790819' date='Feb 24 2009, 08:06 PM']+J.M.J.+
yeah, me too. [/quote]

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790591' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:27 PM']Do you have some mathematical proofs you wish to show us?[/quote]

its nearly mathimatically impossible for everything to have happened by pure accident. For the universe to be created from nothing, for earth to be created, for the earth being livable, for humans being created, let alone more than one.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1790569' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:10 PM']My oppinion is not restricting the liberty of other individuals.

If you seek to restrict the rights of others you should have an objectively verifiable reason for it, something accesable to everyone, not some private revelation.[/quote]

scientifically if brothers and sisters mate and create off spring, the human race will die off due to the deformed genetics.

Also, by your theory, the government are restricting my rights [mod]Mature content. --Era Might[/mod] Or the government is recstricing my right to blah blah blah. The government has a duty to restrict things and put limitations on the public. If there is no restrictions, then we have anarchy. Which does not work as a form of government.

[havok579257]

[quote name='track2004' post='1790609' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:37 PM']Marriage in the state's view is essentially just a contract, right. You sign a piece of paper saying that you and your wife or husband are going to go this together. So all the crazy forms of marriage you were talking about don't work because (1) kids, animals, etc. can't enter into a contract and (2) generally more than 2 people can't enter into a contract.

Contract law says animals cannot enter into a contract, period. They can't manifest assent. Doesn't happen. No way. No how. No one can marry an animal (besides, you know, humans).

Contract law says minors can only sign voidable contracts. It's a technicality, but it means kids wouldn't be able to marry. Just like now. Kids can't marry.

Contracts can be restricted to be between two people. You can't marry a corporation (even though it gets treated like a person under the law). Two corporations can't marry (they can merge but that's different, mostly). It is generally hard to get more than two people (or other entities) to manifest mutual assent (the basis for contract law) because Party 6 will have a problem with Party 1's terms even though Parties 2 thru 5 are cool.

Contract law is based on the idea that if two people agree to something then they should be able to do it. You want to sell your house to me for $20, we can sign the papers and we're good. You want to do my (your old) lawn work and charge me $100 and hour, if I agree, we're good. You want to do anything short of something illegal and we're good. So why does contract law bar me from marring a girl? No other contract requires anything about the gender of the parties. And doesn't basing something on gender feel kind of arbitrary.

I'm an adult, I want to enter into a contract with another adult, what's so wrong with that? Under the rest of current normal contract law, nothing. Under current marriage laws, something.[/quote]


If marriage is just a contract, more than 2 people can enter into a contract. A contract can involve as many people as possible. How many people are involved in a contract when inheretance is at issue. Usually all siblings, which can be anywhere from 1 to 50. So to say a contract can only involve 2 people is wrong.

Also a house usually involved more than 2 people. Couple A buy a house from couple B. That's 4 people right there. I don't know where your thinking a contract can only be between 2 people.


Just curious, if you think all marriage is, is a contract, then why does it matter if your married? I think marriage is something sacred and means way more than a contract, so that's why I want to be able to marry. Although, if its only a contract and nothing more, why does it matter to get married or not?

[havok579257]

[quote name='track2004' post='1790618' date='Feb 24 2009, 05:46 PM']I don't think we'd be ruling over the majority. It's not like we'd have any affect on your marriage or your rights to get one. It's not like we'd be running around teaching our kids how bad those straights are.

And beyond that, there is something inherently dangerous about a democracy: that the majority rules, sometimes at a great cost to minorities. Just because 51% of people agree doesn't mean it is right or fair. The role of government is to protect [i]all[/i] of it's people. Look, whole Wiki article: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority[/url] .[/quote]


Wiki is not the best place to quote considering anyone can get on there and write anything. There is numerous times I have read stuff on wiki that is completly wrong.

Actually if the majority agree then it is fair, although not necessarily right. Although it is always fair since that what a democratic government is based off of. That you get a voice. You can try and get people to see your point of view. Although at the end of the day, its up to the majority to vote and that's what is made law. If 51% of poeple were for gay marriage and it was maded into law, would you still say its unfair and wrong, this form of government? Your only saying its wrong because you views are not that of the majority. Its the same for pro-lifer's.

I have no issue if you want to get a civil union. Honestly I think any marriage NOT inside a church should not be called a marriage but a civil union. If you I go to the courthouse with a women, it should not be called marriage, it should be called a civil union. Marriage should only happen in church's.