NC, USA: Man Fires Shotgun Into Neighbor's Yard Sign Against Ammendment One

[Term_the_Schmuck]

If I can get a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are the opposite gender, I might as well be getting a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are homosex.

This is a dumb argument to make, but it also, I suppose, highlights how old-fashioned the "institution of marriage" may be these days.

Had I stayed with my ex, eventually we would have needed to get married because he was going into the Navy and the military doesn't help couples stay together at all if they aren't married. Also, in the event that he wound up in critical condition at the hospital, it would have allowed me to see him and have some kind of input on his care (and vice versa). Also, it helps with things like health insurance, child adoption, getting a loan for a home, etc.,

"You just want tax breaks" is kind of insulting.

It's also dishonest when you're beating around the bush by saying "Oh, I just want to marry the person I love, is that so wrong?"

And so we're clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting the tax breaks or privileges, as many of us realize that's at the crux of what the gay marriage issue is all about.

What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.

 

[Ad Hoc]

It's also dishonest when you're beating around the bush by saying "Oh, I just want to marry the person I love, is that so wrong?"

And so we're clear, there's nothing wrong with wanting the tax breaks or privileges, as many of us realize that's at the crux of what the gay marriage issue is all about.

What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.

What I mean when I say "I just want to marry the person I love," is, "I want to build a life with the person I love." Marriage isn't absolutely necessary for that but it really helps with it in a good number of ways--it helps a lot with issues of child rearing, getting a home, health issues, etc.,

Maybe the LGBT community should switch to "I want to build a life with the person I love," but it's not as immediately relatable to marriage. I think the current phrase of choice is comprehensible enough.

 

[Spatel]

Just so we're clear now.

You are saying all you really want are the tax and legal benefits, right?

It isn't about the legal benefits at all, and if you think it is, you're completely missing the fucking point: it's the principle of the thing. By having a law on the books that says gay couples are not and cannot be families, it sends a message that their lifestyle is bad. The existence of these laws, even if it minimally impacts queer individuals directly, is used to humiliate and degrade them. That is all. I never plan on getting married. Probably no domestic partnership either. This doesn't do jack shit for me in a legal sense.

And technically speaking, no one deserves anything. Heterosexual, homosexual, or whatever.

You should be very careful about expressing a pretty radical line of thought like this as if it's some kind of universal fact. Most people think there are certain 'inalienable' rights. Those would constitute things that everyone deserves. Demoting human rights to privileges is the first step towards becoming a despot.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

What I mean when I say "I just want to marry the person I love," is, "I want to build a life with the person I love." Marriage isn't absolutely necessary for that but it really helps with it in a good number of ways--it helps a lot with issues of child rearing, getting a home, health issues, etc.,

Maybe the LGBT community should switch to "I want to build a life with the person I love," but it's not as immediately relatable to marriage. I think the current phrase of choice is comprehensible enough.

I'm moreso referencing Glitch's little comments that she's made in this thread regarding her belief that she has a right to marry. That she's going about it attempting to play at emotional heartstrings as opposed to relating to the facts of the matter.

And the facts when you look at the disparity in the kinds of things gay couples suffer from is more concrete than "I want to marry for love," because the old joke of "you don't marry for love" or "being miserable like the rest of us" pops up and it's taken much less seriously.

 

[Ad Hoc]

I'm moreso referencing Glitch's little comments that she's made in this thread regarding her belief that she has a right to marry. That she's going about it attempting to play at emotional heartstrings as opposed to relating to the facts of the matter.

And the facts when you look at the disparity in the kinds of things gay couples suffer from is more concrete than "I want to marry for love," because the old joke of "you don't marry for love" or "being miserable like the rest of us" pops up and it's taken much less seriously.

Glitch is, as far as I'm aware, a high school girl. That doesn't make her stupid, but she probably just doesn't think about the things that I listed, or think about them in a way that's clear and easy to express. When I was in high school, the thought of kids, or home loans, or health insurance, whatever, wouldn't have really . . . been on my mind? I knew that they were what was so important about legal marriage, but they weren't important enough to me to think about often; so I wouldn't have been able to express that readily. I suspect Glitch is in a similar position. Maybe she does need to have it pointed out to her so that she can fix her rhetoric, though.

I would probably agree with your second bit here. Obviously gays can already make vows--the real issues are more concrete, you're right.

 

[Lobar]

Depends on where you're burning the cross.

If you're placing the cross on someone elses' lawn, you're trespassing. Private Property rights outweigh your First Amendment rights.

This sign wasn't on his lawn, at worst it's described as only being "near" his property.

Incorrect. In rural areas in North Carolina, you can discharge weapons such as a shotgun generally as long as you're 100 yards from roads or dwellings. I don't know where people are getting this "city" business from. I don't know what part of this video constitutes that he's in a heavily populated area, or even something that constitutes a semi-urban environment. Looked more rural to me.

Yard signs are relatively expensive to produce, generally campaigns don't distribute them in places where there will be no neighbors driving by to see it. That itself implies this isn't the middle of nowhere, unless of course he did in fact steal and relocate the sign to shoot it.

 

[Ad Hoc]

Does it really matter if what he did was legal or constitutional, in he context of this thread? This isn't a courtroom, none of us are charging or sentencing him. The local courts and other involved parties will deal with that, if he did do anything out of line. I could tell you all to eat a bag of dookie and it'd be within my constitutional rights; doesn't mean I wouldn't be a dick for doing so. I think most of us can agree that the dude's a dick, if nothing else.

 

[Roose Hurro]

I deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. What did gays ever do to not deserve equality, hmm?

Explain that to me.

I already did. You have the RIGHT to marry already, what you don't have is the PRIVALEGE of government recognition. THAT is what you want, a privalege, not a right.

Really though.

If I can get a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are the opposite gender, I might as well be getting a tax break for fucking my significant other in the ass provided they are homosex.

This is a dumb argument to make, but it also, I suppose, highlights how old-fashioned the "institution of marriage" may be these days.

No, it's not a dumb argument. Homosexuals want the RIGHT to MARRY when they already possess that right, they just don't have the PRIVALEGE of owning a piece of state-granted paper that "legalizes" that union. Homo or hetero, you don't NEED that paper to get married. And the only thing that paper gives you is tax bennies and the like. It's like homos are saying "I want to force the state to recognize my union".........

Well, however you want to put it, it all comes down to getting approval for something they are already free to do, like a puppy being free to pee on the paper, but wanting their owner to say "Good dog!"

Had I stayed with my ex, eventually we would have needed to get married because he was going into the Navy and the military doesn't help couples stay together at all if they aren't married. Also, in the event that he wound up in critical condition at the hospital, it would have allowed me to see him and have some kind of input on his care (and vice versa). Also, it helps with things like health insurance, child adoption, getting a loan for a home, etc.,

"You just want tax breaks" is kind of insulting.

But it's the truth... you want all the "bennies" that come with that piece of paper. Otherwise, you'd just settle for "common law". Not to mention, I've heard/read people saying/writing that the whole "tax" thing is what they're after. Maybe not you, but that particular truth is out there.

What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.

Which is my whole point, exactly.

You should be very careful about expressing a pretty radical line of thought like this as if it's some kind of universal fact. Most people think there are certain 'inalienable' rights. Those would constitute things that everyone deserves. Demoting human rights to privileges is the first step towards becoming a despot.

But that's just it... you already have the right to marry, you just don't have the privalege of being recognized by the government... the same government that didn't even exist back when God married Adam and Eve. Which, even if you don't believe the Bible, shows that marriage... making a FAMILY, as you put it... doesn't need a piece of paper. It simply needs a lifelong committment. Vows exchanged in front of witnesses. Let me put it to you this way: If you were some primative, tribal native, you would take a husband/wife by exchanging vows in front of your chieftan and fellow tribesmates. No documentation required.

But yes, now that we have governments that meddle in private affairs, we have these issues. And though I understand where you're coming from, I think you'd have a better chance at success if you changed your "point of attack", so to speak.

I would probably agree with your second bit here. Obviously gays can already make vows--the real issues are more concrete, you're right.

So, the focus needs to be turned to the real issues.

 

[Bipolar Bear]

What we're saying is actually say that's what you want instead of trying to play it off like it's only about love, because marriage as a ceremony can be performed with or without legal certification.

Actually, Term has a point here (Doesn't he always?).

To have a Gay marriage doesn't really change anything. Besides, a vast majority of married couples divorce within 1-10 years. Even when it says in the vows 'Until death do you part', people are still going to divorce one another. Sure, you get tax breaks. And sure, you get Media attention.

But to be completely honest, Gay marriage is pointless in my opinion.

 

[Ad Hoc]

But it's the truth... you want all the "bennies" that come with that piece of paper. Otherwise, you'd just settle for "common law". Not to mention, I've heard/read people saying/writing that the whole "tax" thing is what they're after. Maybe not you, but that particular truth is out there.

Roose, you worry me, my friend. Your reading comprehension is incredibly selective. I just listed five completely valid things, utterly unrelated to taxes, that would make it important for me and other LGBT individuals to get married. Now, later in your post, you say that we don't really need government help to build a family, but for child adoptions, home loans, health insurance, hospital visitation rights . . . yeah, we kind of do. Some of those we might be able to squeeze our way around, but not without a lot of luck and string-pulling that our straight compatriots don't need. Marriage has a huge legal presence.

Actually, Term has a point here (Doesn't he always?).

To have a Gay marriage doesn't really change anything. Besides, a vast majority of married couples divorce within 1-10 years. Even when it says in the vows 'Until death do you part', people are still going to divorce one another. Sure, you get tax breaks. And sure, you get Media attention.

But to be completely honest, Gay marriage is pointless in my opinion.

Please to read.

 

[Sar]

Hmmm... Let me just pull up this chart here... Cool! We're now 12,347,629 dozen bricks into our 'Great Wall of YouTube Idiocy'.

Fixed to be more realistic.

The amount of redneck in this video makes me want to scrub my eyeballs.

Wayyy ahead of you

 

[Bipolar Bear]

Roose, you worry me, my friend. Your reading comprehension is incredibly selective. I just listed five completely valid things, utterly unrelated to taxes, that would make it important for me and other LGBT individuals to get married. Now, later in your post, you say that we don't really need government help to build a family, but for child adoptions, home loans, health insurance, hospital visitation rights . . . yeah, we kind of do. Some of those we might be able to squeeze our way around, but not without a lot of luck and string-pulling that our straight compatriots don't need. Marriage has a huge legal presence.


Please to read.

Hmmmm...

Point taken.

 

[Roose Hurro]

Roose, you worry me, my friend. Your reading comprehension is incredibly selective. I just listed five completely valid things, utterly unrelated to taxes, that would make it important for me and other LGBT individuals to get married. Now, later in your post, you say that we don't really need government help to build a family, but for child adoptions, home loans, health insurance, hospital visitation rights . . . yeah, we kind of do. Some of those we might be able to squeeze our way around, but not without a lot of luck and string-pulling that our straight compatriots don't need. Marriage has a huge legal presence.

It does, indeed, which I think is the real problem. Not only telling me I need their approval to get married, but their approval to be considered a "family", with all the RIGHTS due as a member of said "family". But then, this is the same government that tells us we need a certificate to prove we've been born. So yes, quite a few things that used to require no government recognition today are just loaded with paperwork. I just think couples and families should be recognized without all that paperwork mumbo jumbo. All that legal slavery.

This is truly the crux of the issue. At least to me. If not for that "huge legal presence", we wouldn't be having this discussion. And even if gays are not "legally" permitted to marry, there should be some way to get a proverbial foot in the door. Some other "legal" documentation specially set up to handle "unconventional" partnerships. If what you said is really what gays are looking for. SOME form of recognition, in part if not in full. Something people like our shotgun-toting "redneck" can agree with. Or at least accept.

Thinking outside the box could find a way.

 

[Ad Hoc]

It does, indeed, which I think is the real problem. Not only telling me I need their approval to get married, but their approval to be considered a "family", with all the RIGHTS due as a member of said "family". But then, this is the same government that tells us we need a certificate to prove we've been born. So yes, quite a few things that used to require no government recognition today are just loaded with paperwork. I just think couples and families should be recognized without all that paperwork mumbo jumbo. All that legal slavery.

Well, you know, I might agree with you. That might be nice. But I think the law exists as it does for a reason. If we get rid of marriage, how do you propose we handle issues of child adoption/custody, health and life insurance, home loans, power of attorney in life-threatening situations, wills and estates, etc.,

I've got a genetic disorder. My body is very breakable and it doesn't heal well. Someday I'll probably be too disabled by it to work full-time or maybe work at all. When my theoretical partner tries to get me signed on to his health insurance, how is the insurance company going to verify that I'm not just some random dude that my partner's just trying to help out? Let's say something bad happens, let's say I get hurt. Really hurt. When my theoretical partner comes strolling into the hospital and wants to visit me in the ICU, how are they going to know he's not just some dope? If I'm in too bad of shape to make medical decisions and he has to make them for me, how are they going to know he's not just some goofball who I don't want making those decisions? It's like they would need some sort of legal documentation of it--and there, we're back to legal marriage, or something like it. There really are some solid reasons for having partnerships be legally recognized.

This is truly the crux of the issue. At least to me. If not for that "huge legal presence", we wouldn't be having this discussion. And even if gays are not "legally" permitted to marry, there should be some way to get a proverbial foot in the door. Some other "legal" documentation specially set up to handle "unconventional" partnerships. If what you said is really what gays are looking for. SOME form of recognition, in part if not in full. Something people like our shotgun-toting "redneck" can agree with. Or at least accept.

Well, I think this came up last time we discussed this--a clone of legal marriage but by another name. I wouldn't have a problem with that, I don't think many other LGBT folks would either. (Unless, I suppose, they themselves are religious.) Unfortunately, there really isn't another widely-known term that we can use. "Civil unions" don't come close to legal marriage as far as the law's concerned. We could just make something up, but with respect to reader comprehension, we're kind of stuck with "legal marriage" for now.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

This sign wasn't on his lawn, at worst it's described as only being "near" his property.

What constitutes "near" becomes the question then. As I mentioned, was it actually on HIS property? Was it on his neighbors? Was it on "public" land which the sign isn't allowed to be on? We don't know, all we're doing is guessing.

And as I've continually said from when I started posting in his thread, if he acquired the sign illegally then this becomes a criminal matter as opposed to an issue about First Amendment expression. But the discussion has continually focused mainly on what he chose to do with the sign which is why that has taken the forefront of the conversation.

Yard signs are relatively expensive to produce, generally campaigns don't distribute them in places where there will be no neighbors driving by to see it. That itself implies this isn't the middle of nowhere, unless of course he did in fact steal and relocate the sign to shoot it.

Rural doesn't constitute "middle of nowhere." Again, we don't have the facts. As you've mentioned previously, all we have to go on is what some bloggers are saying but there's nothing concrete either way where he got the sign from or where exactly he is aside from "on his property." If someone knows this guy and would like to enlighten us, please be my guest.

Does it really matter if what he did was legal or constitutional, in he context of this thread? This isn't a courtroom, none of us are charging or sentencing him. The local courts and other involved parties will deal with that, if he did do anything out of line. I could tell you all to eat a bag of dookie and it'd be within my constitutional rights; doesn't mean I wouldn't be a dick for doing so. I think most of us can agree that the dude's a dick, if nothing else.

Well there's being a dick and then there's actually doing something against the law. The conversation steered towards "he shouldn't be allowed to do that" or at least that's what I've been getting out of Trp's and others' responses to this thread. I'm of the opinion that if he's done nothing illegal in the acquiring of the sign and followed basic safety precautions when he decided to shoot at the sign, there's nothing inherently wrong with what he did, though we can form our own opinions on his character based on his method of expression, certainly.

 

[Spatel]

I already did. You have the RIGHT to marry already, what you don't have is the PRIVALEGE of government recognition. THAT is what you want, a privalege, not a right.

There is absolutely nothing to base this argument on. Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior. Rights are inherent. Free speech is a right. Freedom to practice any religion you so choose (or none) is a right. Being alive is a right. We have to establish certain things as inalienable rights for our society to foster a sufficient amount of trust between its members to operate. Rights are what allow us the opportunity to earn further privileges.

One right, established in the Due Process clause of our country's 14th amendment, says that state and local governments cannot deprive their citizens of life, liberty, and property, without steps being taken to ensure fairness. Protection from discrimination is a right, and it has to be treated as a right, because in the past when we've left things like racial or sexual discrimination up in the air, people have abused them. By passing amendment 1, North Carolina will be depriving all couples currently in domestic partnerships of rights they used to have. This is applied unfairly, since it limits legal recognition of couples to being something only certain people can obtain, through circumstances they did not earn.

But it's the truth... you want all the "bennies" that come with that piece of paper. Otherwise, you'd just settle for "common law". Not to mention, I've heard/read people saying/writing that the whole "tax" thing is what they're after. Maybe not you, but that particular truth is out there.

Amendment 1 bans common law marriage. Also, why does it so offend you that gays want tax benefits that straight couples can already get? This seems like such a non-argument. Tell me why you think they shouldn't have those, if you think straight couples should. And make it a good argument. None of that "well they can't reproduce" shit, because they actually can, and there are arrangements where they do, and there are straight couples that choose not to have kids, or can't have kids, and under any such argument those couples should be denied benefits, no?

But that's just it... you already have the right to marry, you just don't have the privalege of being recognized by the government... the same government that didn't even exist back when God married Adam and Eve. Which, even if you don't believe the Bible, shows that marriage... making a FAMILY, as you put it... doesn't need a piece of paper. It simply needs a lifelong committment. Vows exchanged in front of witnesses. Let me put it to you this way: If you were some primative, tribal native, you would take a husband/wife by exchanging vows in front of your chieftan and fellow tribesmates. No documentation required.

But yes, now that we have governments that meddle in private affairs, we have these issues. And though I understand where you're coming from, I think you'd have a better chance at success if you changed your "point of attack", so to speak.

I cannot understand where you're coming from, for that matter. To what ends are you trying to argue against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage? In the principle of applying the law fairly to all demographics, that is the only logical thing to do. If you wanted to argue against any financial benefits given through legal marriage... that's an entirely different argument isn't it? And that pursuit is a worthwhile one. It's also politically impossible right now. So we're focusing on equality in this area first, and then we'll move on to the next step. And regardless, there are legal issues that are not financially-related that need to be equalized anyway.

 

[Roose Hurro]

Well, you know, I might agree with you. That might be nice. But I think the law exists as it does for a reason. If we get rid of marriage, how do you propose we handle issues of child adoption/custody, health and life insurance, home loans, power of attorney in life-threatening situations, wills and estates, etc.

Perhaps, but then, we have quite a few redundant/useless/harmful laws on the books, do we not? It's not getting rid of marriage, it's getting rid of the "legal" paperwork. But as you've noted, that opens up other issues. Society has grown so complex, so huge, it seems we're stuck with the paperwork whether we like it or not.

I've got a genetic disorder. My body is very breakable and it doesn't heal well. Someday I'll probably be too disabled by it to work full-time or maybe work at all. When my theoretical partner tries to get me signed on to his health insurance, how is the insurance company going to verify that I'm not just some random dude that my partner's just trying to help out? Let's say something bad happens, let's say I get hurt. Really hurt. When my theoretical partner comes strolling into the hospital and wants to visit me in the ICU, how are they going to know he's not just some dope? If I'm in too bad of shape to make medical decisions and he has to make them for me, how are they going to know he's not just some goofball who I don't want making those decisions? It's like they would need some sort of legal documentation of it--and there, we're back to legal marriage, or something like it. There really are some solid reasons for having partnerships be legally recognized.

I have my own physical (birth-related) issues... don't know if they're genetic or simply environmental/developmental, but, last time I broke a bone, it took 18 months to recover, and I had to repeat the 7th grade twice... lost an entire year of school. So yes, I understand where you're coming from, and I can agree that a person, whatever their "orientation", needs some legal means to assert the rights you mention. Yes, the "marriage license" may be a privalege, but you should have the same rights with or without the "paper". But then, thanks to a whole butt-load of anal-retentiveness, we'd need some other form of "paper" to enumerate those particular rights you mention. As I've mentioned before, people used to be able to get married without documentation, without a problem. But somewhere along the line, we ended up with laws that required us to have a license for legal recognition. Rather than demanding to be included on the existing license, the LGBT community needs a "license" of its own, created especially for their specific needs.

And no, I have no idea how you'd accomplish that. I just know you'd have better success if you left "legal marriage" as a contract between a man and a woman, and came up with your own unique legal contract. At least I'd hope you'd have better success.

Well, I think this came up last time we discussed this--a clone of legal marriage but by another name. I wouldn't have a problem with that, I don't think many other LGBT folks would either. (Unless, I suppose, they themselves are religious.) Unfortunately, there really isn't another widely-known term that we can use. "Civil unions" don't come close to legal marriage as far as the law's concerned. We could just make something up, but with respect to reader comprehension, we're kind of stuck with "legal marriage" for now.

Then that sounds like the issue. The LGBT folks need a form of "Civil Union" that legalizes their needs. Call it a "Civil Union Plus". Yes, "legal marriage" has the whole comprehension thing down, but isn't that the problem? You want something the LGBT community and the gov can agree on, but something that won't gain the ire of the NON-LGBT community. And since you already have the right to marry, and just need the legal recognition, the focus should be on getting that legal recognition by whatever means will be successful. Continuing with the same tactics that have been failing just isn't a good use of time and energy. You need to stop stubbornly treading on toes. Because that's no way to gain support for your cause.

There is absolutely nothing to base this argument on. Privileges are social contracts that we earn through good behavior. Rights are inherent. Free speech is a right. Freedom to practice any religion you so choose (or none) is a right. Being alive is a right. We have to establish certain things as inalienable rights for our society to foster a sufficient amount of trust between its members to operate. Rights are what allow us the opportunity to earn further privileges.

Of course there is. In fact, in your very next sentence, you've made it clear that even marriage, itself can be considered a privalege, since marriage is a social contract that is earned, is it not? You have to earn the affections of your partner, so you have someone to marry in the first place. Homo or hetero. So yes, free speach is a right. Because it isn't a social contract. Religion is a right. Because it isn't a social contract. Being alive is a right (unless you happen to still be in your mother's womb). Because it isn't a social contract.

One right, established in the Due Process clause of our country's 14th amendment, says that state and local governments cannot deprive their citizens of life, liberty, and property, without steps being taken to ensure fairness. Protection from discrimination is a right, and it has to be treated as a right, because in the past when we've left things like racial or sexual discrimination up in the air, people have abused them. By passing amendment 1, North Carolina will be depriving all couples currently in domestic partnerships of rights they used to have. This is applied unfairly, since it limits legal recognition of couples to being something only certain people can obtain, through circumstances they did not earn.

Point taken. But success has a lot to do with how you present yourself. And there are times when you must change your approach, if you hope to change how other people view your cause.

Amendment 1 bans common law marriage. Also, why does it so offend you that gays want tax benefits that straight couples can already get? This seems like such a non-argument. Tell me why you think they shouldn't have those, if you think straight couples should. And make it a good argument. None of that "well they can't reproduce" shit, because they actually can, and there are arrangements where they do, and there are straight couples that choose not to have kids, or can't have kids, and under any such argument those couples should be denied benefits, no?

It doesn't offend me at all. I just had someone spouting off about love when the simple fact is they CAN get married. Just can't get the legal recognition. And yes, with that legal recognition comes a whole host of bennies, including those tax-related. So, rather that spout on about love and junk, be honest with what you're after. Admit you want all the bennies.

As for straight couples, they also have the right to get married without a license, and like gays, forgo all the bennies. And like I've mentioned, I've read about how marriage is on the wane, straight couples getting married without the legalities, so they don't have the legal tangles of divorce, should things not work out. If you're not "legally" married, then you don't need to concern yourself with a "legal" divorce. See? No need to bring reproduction into this at all.

I cannot understand where you're coming from, for that matter. To what ends are you trying to argue against the legal recognition of same-sex marriage? In the principle of applying the law fairly to all demographics, that is the only logical thing to do. If you wanted to argue against any financial benefits given through legal marriage... that's an entirely different argument isn't it? And that pursuit is a worthwhile one. It's also politically impossible right now. So we're focusing on equality in this area first, and then we'll move on to the next step. And regardless, there are legal issues that are not financially-related that need to be equalized anyway.

Well, that's your issue, not mine. But I'll try again. I'm simply saying that marriage, at its very start, did not involve a "legal" contract. And if you're not aware, plenty of people live together in "relationships" without even being married, let alone "legally" married. Children and all.

And yes, all the issues you bring up could indeed stand to be equalized. I've already mentioned possibilities, above, to avoid the whole social tangle involved in the issue. Or at least enough of the tangle to give you an easier time, perhaps. Personally, not being gay, I have no investment in the whole issue, either for or against. I just see some of the perceptual problems, and try to suggest alternative approaches. Take it with a grain of salt, if you must.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

I got a great idea. Why not illegalize marriage? It's not like people get married for the financial benefits.

 

[Ad Hoc]

I got a great idea. Why not illegalize marriage? It's not like people get married for the financial benefits.

Too many institutions built on it. You'd have to re-write a lot of laws concerning child adoption/custody, hospital visitation rights, health and life insurance, power of attorney, wills and estates, home loans, etc., Honestly, for some of them (particularly power of attorney), I don't know how one would even go about it without basically created some other kind of legally recognized partnership--essentially, marriage by another name.


Roose, we seem to basically be in agreement except for the use of the word "marriage." Your criticisms are valid and I'll consider them. Unfortunately I can't really just . . . make up a new term for the whole community to use; so I still kind of have to maintain that for reader comprehension, "legal marriage" is really the best available term. But I'll ponder on it and talk to a few of my peers about it.



EDIT: Well, I haven't read your exchange with Spatel at all, so I dunno if I agree with what's in there. That's Spatel's, though.

 

[Glitch]

Roose, late to the party on this one, but what is with this civil union 'plus' v legal marriage hogwash?

Hmm, sounds so familiar.

Marriage, to those who don't care about it, or those who go through them like tissues in a circle-jerk cleanup, is not really that sacred. Really, look at the dramatic celebs. Do they give two shits about the sanctity of marriage? Nope. Neither do the people that marry hookers in Las Vegas. Let the people who want to have it, have it. If they are two consenting adults, then where is the issue?

Again, what have we done (as homosexuals/bisexuals/queers in general) to deserve marital segregation, if we are even lucky enough to do that all (get a civil union)? Are we too fabulous for marriage or something?

As far as marriage being a privilege goes, sure, when it is between lovers. But it shouldn't be up to the government and the voters to dictate what (adult, consenting once again) lovers can and cannot do. Throwing in the adult and consenting parts so you don't go off on ridiculous "slippery slope to bestiality and pedophilia" tangets.

I'm moreso referencing Glitch's little comments that she's made in this thread regarding her belief that she has a right to marry. That she's going about it attempting to play at emotional heartstrings as opposed to relating to the facts of the matter.

And the facts when you look at the disparity in the kinds of things gay couples suffer from is more concrete than "I want to marry for love," because the old joke of "you don't marry for love" or "being miserable like the rest of us" pops up and it's taken much less seriously.

Fine, then here are the damn facts if you want them.

I want equality. I probably will never even get married. But I hate the fact that you have idiot people voting on whether or not I deserve said equality. The government says no because the people did, and that is just sickening.

It will happen eventually, we will get equality. I just want it to happen in my lifetime.

Now is that really that bad? Really. Do tell.

 

[Roose Hurro]

I got a great idea. Why not illegalize marriage? It's not like people get married for the financial benefits.

Because then you'd be doing something stupid. Just look what happened with prohibition.

Too many institutions built on it. You'd have to re-write a lot of laws concerning child adoption/custody, hospital visitation rights, health and life insurance, power of attorney, wills and estates, home loans, etc., Honestly, for some of them (particularly power of attorney), I don't know how one would even go about it without basically created some other kind of legally recognized partnership--essentially, marriage by another name.

It was easy for me to get power of attorney over my mother's finacial affairs... all I needed was her signature on a piece of paper, to indicate she'd willfully turned that power over to me. So, simply took her to the bank, had her sign, and done.

Roose, we seem to basically be in agreement except for the use of the word "marriage." Your criticisms are valid and I'll consider them. Unfortunately I can't really just . . . make up a new term for the whole community to use; so I still kind of have to maintain that for reader comprehension, "legal marriage" is really the best available term. But I'll ponder on it and talk to a few of my peers about it.

Yes... but my thing is, that word "marriage" has been around a long time, and has always been between a man and a woman. What the LGBT community is trying to do is change that, after all this time. So the difficulties are quite understandable. Better to avoid that whole "mass" you'd have to move and just come up with something under a different name. Eventually, if not right this moment. And yes, ponder, and talk with your peers. Who knows, you might just come up with something.

EDIT: Well, I haven't read your exchange with Spatel at all, so I dunno if I agree with what's in there. That's Spatel's, though.

Indeed it is... different person, different angle. Thanks for the reasoned discussion on your part.

 

[JArt.]

Bec
Yes... but my thing is, that word "marriage" has been around a long time, and has always been between a man and a woman. What the LGBT community is trying to do is change that, after all this time. So the difficulties are quite understandable. Better to avoid that whole "mass" you'd have to move and just come up with something under a different name. Eventually, if not right this moment. And yes, ponder, and talk with your peers. Who knows, you might just come up with something.

I agree, most people i know who are against gay marriage would be ok with it as long as it isn't called marriage.

 

[Term_the_Schmuck]

Fine, then here are the damn facts if you want them.

I want equality. I probably will never even get married. But I hate the fact that you have idiot people voting on whether or not I deserve said equality. The government says no because the people did, and that is just sickening.

It will happen eventually, we will get equality. I just want it to happen in my lifetime.

Now is that really that bad? Really. Do tell.

Yes, your explanation is terrible if you honestly expect someone to take you seriously.

The whole "I want my rights, but I'll probably never even use them if I get them" schtick is piss poor. Like getting up in front of a bunch of people to give a presentation and saying "I know this is going to suck, but please bear with me." You've already lost me because you feel the need to preface what you're saying that what you have to say probably doesn't matter to you in the long run.

So basically all you've told me is "I deserve equality to be in the same exact situation as I am now without my perceived equality" and "people are stupid." I can assure you one thing, the best way to get people to change their opinion is to call them stupid. :V

We all want to see things happen in our lifetimes. I want to see the Giants win 10 more Super Bowls. I want to see human beings on other planets. But neither of those are as concrete as "I want to make sure that if my significant other has something drastic happen for them that I can visit them in the hospital/we can share finances/etc."

If the basis of what you call "equality" is simply the term "marriage" then you're going to have a hard time convincing people that what you're talking about isn't a childish pursuit. Ad Hoc has a point, maybe you don't have the perspective on the kinds of things that marriage provides that are actual issues of equality and are just clinging to a word as opposed to the actual legal benefits that come with a legally recognized union. This is far more important than an arbitrary word.

 

[Spatel]

Of course there is. In fact, in your very next sentence, you've made it clear that even marriage, itself can be considered a privalege, since marriage is a social contract that is earned, is it not? You have to earn the affections of your partner, so you have someone to marry in the first place. Homo or hetero. So yes, free speach is a right. Because it isn't a social contract. Religion is a right. Because it isn't a social contract. Being alive is a right (unless you happen to still be in your mother's womb). Because it isn't a social contract.

No... the ability to get marred is a right. Finding someone to marry is a privilege. Be very careful here, because suggesting the institution itself is a privilege suggests the *good behavior* involves marrying someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Bipolar Bear]

This battle between Glitch and Term is getting more hot than Brad Pitt in Fight Club...