Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, gay marriage stuff)

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

For christ's sake has this place gone mad? Are you suggesting people who sleep around want to make those people their wives or husbands?

Polygamists obviously do.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

You sounds like adidasss now, if you can't read it say so. But I'm inclined to think it isn't my spelling when you write things like "why do I need to think? the law tells me what it is."

The law is relativly new. So someone elses definition was just made "the law." which removes all historical steep, as well as well debated policy. It was voter mandate. Saying we're going to redefine the law makes it sound like we're going against nature. We're not.

What i want to know is why you're making a case of polygamy. Do you want them to have rights?

When someone says, why can't people choose who they want to marry, your response is "why can't we marry multiple people?"

Quit dodging the god damned bullet and eat it like a man. You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

It doesn't MATTER if I want polygamists to have rights, it's whether they DESERVE rights UNDER THE LAW. That's the whole question to this. There are certainly people that don't want homosexuals to have rights, it's a matter of whether they deserve these rights under the law.

If someone asked me, "Why can't people choose who they want to marry?", I'd probably answer "It's not legal to do so."

You are bringing your personal opinions into a legal discussion.

And since you mentioned it....

"Because if you figure out what Marriage is, and by the by, let me know when you do, you'll agree that theres a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."

I have no idea what this means. It uses horrible English, horrible sentence structure, horrible grammar, and makes little to no sense. I'd love to hear what college you graduated from and what you studied, I don't believe it for a second.

[Freebase Dali]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

Polygamists obviously do.

Ultimately I think every motivation out there feels it deserves rights, and at some point the rest of the people feel those rights would be at odds with their own moral codes, but who's the authority that decides which perspectives are correct?
It's easy to look at everything in a law book perspective, but I think the whole jumblefuck behind it all is a matter of all of society trying to assert their ideals and everyone not agreeing.
If you think that's going to change any time soon, then you may as well start thinking everyone involved in this debate on MB will suddenly come to a unified understanding and we'll run out of shit to disagree about.

Anyway, I didn't mean that to be an argumentative point.
Just making a statement and retiring from this debate, because it obviously won't go anywhere.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

And since you mentioned it....

"Because if you figure out what Marriage is, and by the by, let me know when you do, you'll agree that theres a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."

I have no idea what this means. It uses horrible English, horrible sentence structure, horrible grammar, and makes little to no sense. I'd love to hear what college you graduated from and what you studied, I don't believe it for a second.

I didn't find that sentence hard to understand at all, and as far as I can tell the only thing that would need to be done to it to make it more grammatically correct would be to replace the first and third commas with em-dashes.

[IamAlejo]

Originally Posted by Veridical Fiction

Ultimately I think every motivation out there feels it deserves rights, and at some point the rest of the people feel those rights would be at odds with their own moral codes, but who's the authority that decides which perspectives are correct?
It's easy to look at everything in a law book perspective, but I think the whole jumblefuck behind it all is a matter of all of society trying to assert their ideals and everyone not agreeing.
If you think that's going to change any time soon, then you may as well start thinking everyone involved in this debate on MB will suddenly come to a unified understanding and we'll run out of shit to disagree about.

Anyway, I didn't mean that to be an argumentative point.
Just making a statement and retiring from this debate, because it obviously won't go anywhere.

That's the point I've been trying to show Big3 through the example but it's flying over his head. Where we draw the line of who gets rights and who doesn't is not an easy decision.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

That's the point I've been trying to show Big3 through the example but it's flying over his head. Where we draw the line of who gets rights and who doesn't is not an easy decision.

That's why we're having these discussions and why there's a debate on the issue, but I think what big3 was trying to say (and which I understood oddly enough, but I'm high so maybe that's it) is that regarding homosexuality, there already is or should be a reasonable (not-religion based) consensus that gay people should be allowed to marry. The problem with polygamy is similar because there's a moral objection to the marriages, but excluding that, there's only the practical matter to be addressed (I only assume that people who are for gay rights would be supportive of all people's rights and thus reach a similar consensus regarding polygamy), whether or not such relationships could be admitted into the institution of marriage without completely dismantling it.

Hope some of that will make sense in the morning...

[cardboard adolescent]

i don't know what conservative white people are so afraid of but i hope it happens

[sleepy jack]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

No that's not a premise at all. You are completely missing the point of this and it's not that difficult to grasp. I'm judging this from a completely legal standpoint, which is how the courts should judge it.

Definition: Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges.

With that out the way and *** marriage being illegal, it is still equal under the law. Each individual is subject to the same laws. No one is allowed to be married to a person of the same sex, no one is allowed to marry someone underage, no one is allowed to marry multiple persons. That is EQUAL by the definition put forward.

You seem to be arguing that a certain group of people are not equal because who they WISH to be married to is not allowed by the set laws, then that argument can be made. But both polygamists and homosexuals fall under that definition. As stated, a polygamist would still not be allowed to marry who they WISH to be married to. If you are going to allow people to marry who they wish, all should be allowed that right so we are equal under the law.

Yeah I guess I did miss the point because I assumed you had an actual argument rooted in reality here as opposed to a fictitious point which doesn't really go anywhere beyond it's own stating.

[TheBig3]

Originally Posted by IamAlejo

It doesn't MATTER if I want polygamists to have rights, it's whether they DESERVE rights UNDER THE LAW. That's the whole question to this. There are certainly people that don't want homosexuals to have rights, it's a matter of whether they deserve these rights under the law.

If someone asked me, "Why can't people choose who they want to marry?", I'd probably answer "It's not legal to do so."

You are bringing your personal opinions into a legal discussion.

And since you mentioned it....

"Because if you figure out what Marriage is, and by the by, let me know when you do, you'll agree that theres a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."

I have no idea what this means. It uses horrible English, horrible sentence structure, horrible grammar, and makes little to no sense. I'd love to hear what college you graduated from and what you studied, I don't believe it for a second.

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I didn't find that sentence hard to understand at all, and as far as I can tell the only thing that would need to be done to it to make it more grammatically correct would be to replace the first and third commas with em-dashes.

Right, or maybe some parentheticals. So for example...

"Because if you figure out what Marriage is (and by the by, let me know when you do) you'll agree that there's a sound case for homosexual marriage, and it doesn't hover in the gravity field of polygamy."

My comma's were admittedly incorrect. Though I can't imagine that a VT alumn such as yourself couldn't read comma's as a break.

As I read adidasss's comment, I think Alejo and I are arguing two different points. I could be wrong, but I believe he's talking about the court and their decision to uphold Proposition 8. As I stated earlier, I think the court made the correct decision in upholding the voter mandate. I also mentioned that if there was to be any animosity toward the outcome of Proposition 8, it ought to be toward the lack of voter participation in California. That outrage should be not just for California, but for the nation because of the far reaching ramifications it would have.

I think Alejo and I are on the same page with at least the court ruling.

What I've been arguing is the rationale behind the Proposition. Every time I've heard a conservative define it, they've said something like (as I said earlier) "Marriage is defined between a man and a woman."

This was said constantly at the first Republican Presidential Candidate debate. What I'm asking for clarification on is this; it seems as if their using the word marriage to define marriage.

I guess i'm having a hard time getting my point across, but the reason I was asking you (alejo) for a definition is because I don't know what the position of conservatives is.

If someone were to ask me what marriage was in a general sense, I'd say most people would think its "The unity of two people in the eyes of God". I have no issue with that definition on its own, but I don't believe that should be the legal precedent on the books to restrict *** marriage.

I want to know if that's your definition, conservatives definition, if theres another one. That's what I've been trying to get at.

[IamAlejo]

I honestly don't believe the government should play any role in regulating what the definition of "marriage" is and who should be allowed to get married.

Definition: The bond between a man and a woman recognized by their respective church in which these two people acknowledge their commitment to one another in order to form a family and to create a household environment to have and rear a child

The problem exists [imo] in those for *** marriage want it as a form of social acceptance which has often been fought for by this community. Those against want to protect a "sacred" ritual that has long been done by the church. I don't believe the government should play in choosing the sides of this argument. I find it particularly funny from both sides. I'm not *** so maybe I can't fully understand that side, and I believe the church should pay much less attention to what happens in secular law.