Don't Say Gay Bill :: World of Warcraft

#477 Almalieque, Posted: May 04 2011 at 9:53 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start. While there are people fighting to simply be "married", most from what I've heard are fighting for the benefits. At that point, your argument of being discriminated against holds no value.

Quote Reply

#478 May 04 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good

Driftwood

View User Forum

Scholar

9,393 posts

Quote:

If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start. While there are people fighting to simply be "married", most from what I've heard are fighting for the benefits. At that point, your argument of being discriminated against holds no value.

I'm saying that if a man and woman can be married for the benefits, then a same sex couple should be able to as well. My point being, that if you're going to use the benefits thing as an argument against Same Sex Marriage, then you have to argue against all marriage, or else then you're discriminating.

I'm not saying at all that there should be extra benefits, I'm just saying that your argument goes against logic.

____________________________

10k before the site's inevitable death or bust

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.

Alan Watts wrote:

I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning

Eske wrote:

I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#479 May 04 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Guenny wrote:

Majivo wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.

Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...

I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#480 May 04 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good

Guenny

Sage

4,042 posts

Belkira wrote:

Guenny wrote:

Majivo wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.

Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...

I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.

I don't know, I was speculating. It stills happens to people often in our day. How often when you are going to marry someone do you think, "Well, I don't really trust this person 100%, let me make sure they're not legally or otherwise married in another state."

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#481 May 04 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Almalieque wrote:

If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start.

So single people should have the same benefits as married people?

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#482 May 04 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

lolgaxe wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If married couples ARE receiving benefits that single people are not, then you are already discriminating from the start.

So single people should have the same benefits as married people?

Sounds like Alma is advocating communism.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#483 May 04 2011 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

Belkira wrote:

Guenny wrote:

Majivo wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.

Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...

I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.

I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#484 May 04 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Guenny wrote:

Belkira wrote:

Guenny wrote:

Majivo wrote:

LockeColeMA wrote:

Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Plenty of other people have responded to it, but yeah, I don't see the necessity of a defense. I'm sure, however, that anyone who supported same-sex marriage but not polygamy could find one. I'm just not motivated enough to think it through, because it's not an issue for me.

Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here. Also, I'm sure for a lot of people it's the same "pollution of the sacred rite of marriage" that so many people are concerned about, when we have 50%+ divorce rates...

I don't think that's true, because that's so very easily avoidable. That might have been the reason given, but that can't be the real reason.

I don't know, I was speculating. It stills happens to people often in our day. How often when you are going to marry someone do you think, "Well, I don't really trust this person 100%, let me make sure they're not legally or otherwise married in another state."

True. But marrying two people when those people are unaware is, and should be, illegal. Polygamy is different. That's when everyone involved knows what's going on. And so long as everyone involved is signing the certificate (like, one man and one woman marrying another woman or something) then it seems easy to me to prove that happened. Otherwise, it's fraud.

Nadenu wrote:

I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.

I had heard something similary, I think. That is ringing a bell...

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#485 May 04 2011 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

Belkira wrote:

Nadenu wrote:

I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.

I had heard something similary, I think. That is ringing a bell...

Stop giving him ideas!

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#486 May 04 2011 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

This discussion is making me sad that my next DVD of Big Love isn't here yet. =(

▲ Page top

#487 Almalieque, Posted: May 04 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No, my point is that marriage is a very discriminatory institution. Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits. You and your partner must meet certain criteria to include being married. So, a person can't logically make an argument for SSM simply on being prevented from benefits.

Quote Reply

#488 May 04 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits.

That argument sounds a lot like the excuses used for segregation.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

#489 Almalieque, Posted: May 04 2011 at 1:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I didn't create the rules of marriage, I'm just stating them how they are. Given that marriage discriminates, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.

Quote Reply

#490 May 04 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Almalieque wrote:

lolgaxe wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits.

That argument sounds a lot like the excuses used for segregation.

I didn't create the rules of marriage, I'm just stating them how they are. Given that marriage discriminates, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.

So you're saying there was nothing wrong with segregation.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#491 May 04 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

so Alma's argument is that because it isn't perfect, we shouldn't try to make it better?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#492 May 04 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent

Ailitardif

Sage

2,069 posts

Bardalicious wrote:

so Alma's argument is that because it isn't perfect, we shouldn't try to make it better?

Alma is right and wrong as usual.

Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against gay people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.

____________________________

http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#493 May 04 2011 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Guenny wrote:

Polygamy laws are really to protect people from getting married to someone that's already married and their new spouse is unaware. It's perfectly acceptable to have polygamous relationships, you just can't be legally married to more than one person, because that kind of throws a wrench in the whole system we have going here.

And same sex marriage doesn't? I'm not picking on you, it's just that what you wrote is almost exactly my argument about gay marriage. There's nothing preventing you from entering into a gay relationship, but you just can't be legally married. Found it funny is all.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#494 May 04 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Should have read farther I guess.

Belkira wrote:

Nadenu wrote:

I always heard that polygamy was illegal because since you can only be married to one person at a time, the other wives can't benefit legally from their husband. If he decides not to support them, they have to get government assistance. I guess they could possibly sue for child support, but I'd say a lot of them just get welfare.

I had heard something similary, I think. That is ringing a bell...

But then isn't that completely arbitrary? We don't allow polygamy because our current laws don't allow it? Why not? Isn't that just arbitrary discrimination?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#495 May 04 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

LockeColeMA wrote:

Not to get on the conservative side, as I completely understand and agree with the consent being a necessary part of marriage, but what is the defense against polygamy then?

Inertia and legal headaches. SSM can be easily accomplished because, if we work on the notion that both sexes start equally in determining marriage benefits/rights/etc, then what those sexes are (MF/FF/MM) is pretty irrelevant.

Polygamy is a much larger legal headache with a much smaller group of proponents. So it just hasn't happened. As a general concept, I'm not sure that I really care if a group of people want to enter into a consensual polygamous union.

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that as long as the group who sees it as some abomination is significantly larger than the group of proponents, no one is going to even start to tackle the legal tangle it would involve.

Edited, May 4th 2011 7:12pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#496 May 04 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Ailitardif wrote:

Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against gay people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.

Given that the only thing gained by "legally recognized marriage" is the benefits, I'm unsure why you want to make the distinction. There is nothing at all preventing a gay couple from marrying. Their marriage just wont be legally recognized and wont qualify them for any benefits. Let's not forget that we are really just arguing over who gets to qualify for benefits and who doesn't. Marriage discriminate against gay couples exactly as it discriminates against single people and exactly as it discriminates against polygamists and siblings and every other combination of people that doesn't include one adult male and one adult female.

Gay's are not special in this.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#497 May 04 2011 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Polygamy is a much larger legal headache with a much smaller group of proponents.

Let's be honest here. Polygamy is something associated with a minority religion. As such, it's not liked by the majority religions *and* it's not something that the mostly secular left is going to champion. Let's not pretend that there's anything more to it than that. It's just as discriminatory, it's just a discrimination which most people are ok with. Which leads us right back to my whole argument about the distinctions being arbitrary and thus subject to slippery slope.

There is no legitimate reason to discriminate against one, but not the other. Just as theres no reason to restrict marriage benefits from *any* consenting people except purely arbitrary ones about preference. We're ok with two people of the same sex getting married, but not three people? And not siblings? And not adults and children? How about if we marry two children? What about arranged marriages? Aren't we just arbitrarily deciding what we like and we don't like here?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#498 May 04 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

Let's be honest here. Polygamy is something associated with a minority religion. As such, it's not liked by the majority religions *and* it's not something that the mostly secular left is going to champion. Let's not pretend that there's anything more to it than that.

Jophiel wrote:

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that as long as the group who sees it as some abomination is significantly larger than the group of proponents, no one is going to even start to tackle the legal tangle it would involve.

Maybe you missed the edit.

Quote:

Aren't we just arbitrarily deciding what we like and we don't like here?

You can say that about the current state of affairs. Two twelve year old siblings can certainly fuck and make more children so let's let them marry, right?

I guess smarter people see the difference.

Edited, May 4th 2011 7:22pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#499 May 04 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

gbaji wrote:

Let's not forget that we are really just arguing over who gets to qualify for benefits and who doesn't.

And we just can't let those gays get health insurance through their jobs for their significant others!

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#500 May 04 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

lolgaxe wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

lolgaxe wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Just because you love someone and do everything that a heterosexual married couple does, you are not guaranteed the same benefits.

That argument sounds a lot like the excuses used for segregation.

I didn't create the rules of marriage, I'm just stating them how they are. Given that marriage discriminates, it wouldn't surprise me if they are.

So you're saying there was nothing wrong with segregation.

Self-segregation, nope. As I argued numerous times over, the main argument against segregation was that even under "Separate but Equal", it wasn't. I'm sure if it were, we probably still would be segregated.

Are you implying that we should rid marriage because segregation is bad?

Bard wrote:

so Alma's argument is that because it isn't perfect, we shouldn't try to make it better?

Of course not, that's Belkira's argument, see my sig. My argument is that you can't simply use the argument "I'm being discriminated against", when marriage is built upon discrimination.

Aili wrote:

Alma is right and wrong as usual.

Yes, marriage discriminates, but not in the way he means. Marriage discriminates against gay people. Marital benefits discriminate against single people. He is saying marriage but is talking about the benefits.

Marriage doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, they have the same legal restrictions to marriage as heterosexuals. Marriage discriminates on any person or couple that doesn't meet the criteria defined by the government in order to be married.

▲ Page top

#501 gbaji, Posted: May 04 2011 at 6:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How about instead of talking about how easy it is to tell the difference (amusingly, this is the second time someone's used that form of counter), you actually state what the difference is?

Don't Say Gay BillFollow