Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 221
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    In the sense of a biological union, no, it's not the same issue. It's more complicated. It would be the same legal issue as a step child.
    Is it more complicated? If a gay couple chooses to adopt together, or a lesbian couple conceive via in vitro fertilization, the legality isn't akin to step-children. In those cases, the children would legally belong to both parents, just as with straight couples.

    The reality is that having natural children has never been a requirement of marriage. Gay couples would be in the same situation as the multitude who choose to have no children, those who cannot have children except via in vitro, or those who adopt. In all of these cases, straight couples have no barriers to marriage based upon the fact that they are not procreating together. Why do gay couples have a barrier?
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/28/2009 at 09:04 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That's the problem. You're 'feeling' instead of 'thinking'.
    Did we cross in to the Star Trek thread? I didn't know I was to be Vulcan. LOL

    Regardless, my 'feeling' is not interfering with my logic. ;-)
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Is it more complicated?
    Obviously. It's akin to any couple adopting a child.
    If a gay couple chooses to adopt together, or a lesbian couple conceive via in vitro fertilization, the legality isn't akin to step-children.
    How is it not? If the child is the biological progeny of only one half the couple, the other must de facto have a legal procedure done to ensure that both parents are considered the 'legal' parents.
    In those cases, the children would legally belong to both parents, just as with straight couples.
    That's the point, isn't it? If you get married to a person who has biological children, they do not legally become your children without additional steps being taken.
    The reality is that having natural children has never been a requirement of marriage.
    Nor did I say it was.
    Gay couples would be in the same situation as the multitude who choose to have no children, those who cannot have children except via in vitro, or those who adopt.
    So, are those not separate and yet equal from the procedure that those who pursue 'traditional' marriage achieve?
    In all of these cases, straight couples have no barriers to marriage based upon the fact that they are not procreating together. Why do gay couples have a barrier?
    Law of unintended consequences.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Did we cross in to the Star Trek thread? I didn't know I was to be Vulcan. LOL
    Let's just say that I understand the persecution that Spock 'felt'.
    Regardless, my 'feeling' is not interfering with my logic. ;-)
    But it is obviously interfering with your perception.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    But it is obviously interfering with your perception.
    My perception is that an inequality exists, perpetrated by state governments based, solely, on religious beliefs. How is any emotion effecting my perception?

    Emotion may drive my determination to bring this inequality to an end but the inequality exists whether I care or not. :-)
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  6. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Sorry...missed this earlier...


    I wouldn't put it that way. I'm considering it an issue of laziness. The traditional view of marriage makes certain things easier. When things don't fit into that view, it makes things more involved.

    Note that those are your proposed 'legitimate public interests' (or at least the ones you chose to highlight). Making inheritance easier would probably be the only one that I've mentioned. Rewarding love and loyalty, or easing homophobic consciences would be relatively low on my priority list of public interests (and by relatively low, I mean beneath consideration ).

    Perhaps that's my INTPness showing. I'm not considering 'happy' or 'sad' when I discuss such things.
    I will try to be less flippant. The issue we are discussing (although markedly different from the original issue posed in this thread) is whether the refusal of various governmental authorities to recognize the designation of "married" for individuals if they are of the same sex. Whether it is laziness, or something else, that leads people to view one group as deserving this designation, if they want it, and another group as not deserving it, if they want it, isn't the point; the point is that it is denied to some and granted to others based on sexual orientation.

    Now depending on where you are and the laws in your state, it is very clear under our laws that there must be at least a rational basis associated with a legitimate state interest to justify this unequal treatment. That is always the lowest standard. Some states, to justify this type of discrimination, require a higher standard such as a compelling state interest, but I will focus on the rational basis standard since it is the lower one.

    I previously listed some possible state interests off the top of my head in no particular order (knowing of course that some of them were not legitimate interests). A more serious list of interests, and ones that are used in court cases, would be: the need to provide an institutional basis for defining relational rights and responsibilities in an organized society, to promote procreation and family life, the preservation of traditional marriage (I love this one because it is just a restatement of the act of discrimination being discussed), and a man-woman relationship is optimal for raising children.

    I just don't see the rational relationship between these interests and the unequal treatment being perpetrated. As if straight couples don't get divorced, all have children, all raise children well, provide a good and stable financial unit for our society, etc. How can a person rationally look at the reality of personal relationships and suggest that a gay couple can't promote the interests listed above just as well, or better, than a straight couple. There are only two things in the list a gay couple can't do - procreate (but with adoption and artificial insemination that isn't really a real issue), and of course they can't "preserve a traditional marriage" since that "legitimate state interest" is only a restatement of the discriminatory rule anyway.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  7. #127  
    It is great to live in a feel good society where anything goes just to make 'em happy.
  8. #128  
    If a gay couple chooses to adopt together, or a lesbian couple conceive via in vitro fertilization, the legality isn't akin to step-children.
    How is it not? If the child is the biological progeny of only one half the couple, the other must de facto have a legal procedure done to ensure that both parents are considered the 'legal' parents.
    With straight couples, if they undergo in vitro because the man is infertile, the child is the biological product of the mother only. There is no legal adoption by the father - the child is born while the couple is married, and thus the husband is legally the father. I don't see how it would be different with gay couples.

    That's the point, isn't it? If you get married to a person who has biological children, they do not legally become your children without additional steps being taken.
    But if a gay couple adopts or undergoes in vitro while married, both would be the legal parents. That's very different from the child belonging to one parent at the time of marriage.

    Gay couples would be in the same situation as the multitude who choose to have no children, those who cannot have children except via in vitro, or those who adopt.
    So, are those not separate and yet equal from the procedure that those who pursue 'traditional' marriage achieve?
    Not at all. The procedures are different in terms of procreating, but the straight couples involved are not forced to have a "separate but equal" civil union because of it. The point being that arguments that you're using - that is, that reasons of succession can be viable rationales for disallowing gay marriage - don't apply to those straight couples with exactly the same succession issues.

    If all other issues are equal, then the only reason left to justify the inability to marry is the very fact that they're gay. That doesn't seem like an unintended consequence, but rather a very intentional one. Or at least one that can intentionally be addressed.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/29/2009 at 08:20 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    It is great to live in a feel good society where anything goes just to make 'em happy.
    It's great to live in a society where everyone has an equal right to be happy, not just white, Christian, heterosexual males.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/29/2009 at 08:21 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    My perception is that an inequality exists, perpetrated by state governments based, solely, on religious beliefs. How is any emotion effecting my perception?
    I was referring more to how you are perceiving what is being said here, but how can you not see the emotion affecting your perception of the situation? You are judging an inequality as bad. Referring to it as being perpetrated. De facto assuming that only religious beliefs can be a basis for what you are obviously perceiving as a crime.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    I will try to be less flippant.
    TBH, I've no real problems with flippancy. I'm more concerned with arguments being attributed to me which I haven't made.
    The issue we are discussing (although markedly different from the original issue posed in this thread) is whether the refusal of various governmental authorities to recognize the designation of "married" for individuals if they are of the same sex.
    That is only one of the issues being discussed, or more accurately, only one way of framing it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    TBH, I've no real problems with flippancy. I'm more concerned with arguments being attributed to me which I haven't made.

    That is only one of the issues being discussed, or more accurately, only one way of framing it.
    Well on this one issue -- the rational basis for the refusal to allow gays the legal benefits associated with the designation of "married" -- what do you think is the strongest argument that there is a rational basis?

    I not asking you for your personal opinion, as you have stated you are stating and analyzing points and not stating your personal opinions. But I am asking, of the arguments that you are aware of that there is a rational basis for this discrimination, which one do you think is the strongest, or most rational?
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    With straight couples, if they undergo in vitro because the man is infertile, the child is the biological product of the mother only. There is no legal adoption by the father - the child is born while the couple is married, and thus the husband is legally the father. I don't see how it would be different with gay couples.
    Perhaps it's ironic that you would pick that example. The laws are certainly not meshed in all states on such an example. There are all sorts of complications that arise due to 'new' technologies.
    Not at all. The procedures are different in terms of procreating, but the straight couples involved are not forced to have a "separate but equal" civil union because of it.
    That was my point with unintended consequences. Some are getting unintended 'benefits'.
    The point being that arguments that you're using - that is, that reasons of succession can be viable rationales for disallowing gay marriage - don't apply to those straight couples with exactly the same succession issues.
    You are mischaracterizing my 'argument'. I never stated that gay marriage should be disallowed. The most I've said is that I consider some of the 'pro' arguments weak and purely emotional. That's really no different than my view on most of the 'anti' arguments.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #134  
    The point being that arguments that you're using - that is, that reasons of succession can be viable rationales for disallowing gay marriage - don't apply to those straight couples with exactly the same succession issues.
    You are mischaracterizing my 'argument'. I never stated that gay marriage should be disallowed. The most I've said is that I consider some of the 'pro' arguments weak and purely emotional. That's really no different than my view on most of the 'anti' arguments.
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. My intent wasn't to imply that you were personally taking a position against gay marriage, but simply to respond to the idea that there is something inherently different in gay marriage vs. straight marriage due to succession issues. I don't think I've made any statements that relied on pure emotion, other than to state the basic fairness issue.

    That being said, I still don't see any reason to believe that the purpose of government recognition of marriage would have any bearing on whether gay marriage should be allowed. I don't see any legal situation that applies to gay marriage that wouldn't apply to straight couples as well.
    Last edited by Bujin; 05/29/2009 at 10:42 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #135  
    Toby, what is your stance? What is your personal position when it comes to gay marriage? The rest of us have worn our thoughts on our sleeves, so to speak. Why is it important to mask your true feelings? Or is it simply the exercise of pointing out weaknesses in other peoples args that motivates you?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    Well on this one issue -- the rational basis for the refusal to allow gays the legal benefits associated with the designation of "married" -- what do you think is the strongest argument that there is a rational basis?
    Trick question to some extent. I don't know if I see any strong or rational argument to disallow it. I do see some weight to considering it 'differently' than current laws. OTOH, there are a plethora of legal issues already not adequately handled by current laws.
    I not asking you for your personal opinion, as you have stated you are stating and analyzing points and not stating your personal opinions.
    I've no problem giving my personal opinion. I just didn't see the point.
    But I am asking, of the arguments that you are aware of that there is a rational basis for this discrimination, which one do you think is the strongest, or most rational?
    Strongest or most rational would be very loosely applicable. It's more an issue of the current laws not adequately addressing it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. My intent wasn't to imply that you were personally taking a position against gay marriage, but simply to respond to the idea that there is something inherently different in gay marriage vs. straight marriage due to succession issues.
    There is only to the extent that straight marriage can produce biological children from both parents, whereas gay marriage de facto cannot. 'Recent' technology changes have certainly made the issues fuzzier, and more complicated, no doubt.
    I don't think I've made any statements that relied on pure emotion, other than to state the basic fairness issue.
    To frame the question in terms of how calling it something different would make someone feel certainly seems like a purely emotional appeal.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Trick question to some extent. I don't know if I see any strong or rational argument to disallow it. I do see some weight to considering it 'differently' than current laws.
    Just so I understand, are you making the argument that we can simply have two legal frameworks - we call one "marriage" for heterosexuals and we call the other "civil unions" for homosexuals? I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say "considering it 'differently.'"
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Toby, what is your stance? What is your personal position when it comes to gay marriage?
    I'm indifferent to it from pretty much any perspective. If you want to be part of a contractual polyandrous commune, it doesn't affect me in the least.
    The rest of us have worn our thoughts on our sleeves, so to speak. Why is it important to mask your true feelings?
    I'm not masking anything.
    Or is it simply the exercise of pointing out weaknesses in other peoples args that motivates you?
    That must be it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by wjclint View Post
    Just so I understand, are you making the argument that we can simply have two legal frameworks - we call one "marriage" for heterosexuals and we call the other "civil unions" for homosexuals? I'm not sure I follow what you mean when you say "considering it 'differently.'"
    I'm saying that current laws don't adequately address things. Whether the current laws would be changed to just have civil unions under whatever name or that additional legal status would be added doesn't matter much to me personally. The oppositions to additional legal status do come off to me as emotional and not rational, though.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions