UN Passes Gay Rights Protection ResolutionFollow

Pretty good step. Too bad Archbishop Dolan around here thinks same sex marriage would turn New York into Asia.

STUDY PROSPECTUS:

"Yeah, dudes, **** are totally discriminated against. It's, like, hella bad all over the place, but especially in those countries with the terrorists and ****."

Where's my grant money?

You ever listen to Asia? Totally gay!

Edit: What's up with this thing double quoting on me lately?

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 1:35pm by Jophiel

If you're quoting that from the comment section, then I can't seem to find it. I definitely didn't see it in the article.

Its from the Archdiocese of New York's blog that I cited.

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 4:17pm by lolgaxe

I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm betting most conservatives would be fine with it as well. Want to bet the gay rights folks will still condemn it?



Most people would not be against this at all. Since previously the only people even considered for marriage benefits were those who theoretically could produce children together, the idea of putting a time requirement on it never really came up. I'd wager most conservatives would agree to something like that. But no one on the left considered it, or ever proposed it. Want to know why?

Because for them it's not about making marriage benefits "fair", but about providing a goodie to a social group in return for political support. They want to fight for gay couples to get marriage benefits. Your solution doesn't give them the goodie, so it's not a solution they want.


Feel free to propose it though. See how that flies. Go talk to your gay friends who are currently pro-gay-marriage and ask them what they think of your solution. Hell. I give you permission to pretend that some crazy conservative guy you know from an online forum proposed it and not you, so as to protect your friendship when said inevitable "That's just a trick to take rights away from gay people" response occurs. Try it if you want though.

Anyone with an IQ above 10 would condemn it. Ironically, most of them support gay rights.

My great aunt had to have a hysterectomy when she was a girl due to health problems. She married my great uncle after he returned from fighting in WWII. They both died in the past 5 years, having been married that whole time without children.

You honestly think she shouldn't have had any right to marry him, because she wasn't biologically capable of producing offspring?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The greatest irony? Socially conservative peoples also decry sex outside marriage.

I (and I hope Allegory as well) am only talking about the "legal status" of marriage. In other words, does the government grant you special benefits because of you marriage status. Not, does the government make it illegal for you to live together, share expenses, enter into a social contract defining your relationship, wear rings, have a ceremony with cake, etc. I'm talking about whether the government qualifies you for a better first time home loan, or whether they give you access to different tax rates, or whether it lets one of you use the other's social security benefits, or whether it give you a tax break if you put the other person on your health insurance.

You know, all the stuff that the rest of society actually has to pay for.



Sure. That strawman thing which I'm not talking about *is* ridiculous. But that's not what I'm talking about.



Some do. Get back to me when they pass a new law making it illegal. You do get that there's this whole range of activities in between "illegal" and "government funded", right? Some of us call that range of things "liberty" and believe that as much of our society should fall in that range as possible.

Cue another 20 page thread with Gbaji repeating the same tired retarded rhetoric while 5-10 of you continue to argue with him (despite the futility of such matters) over his warped nonsensical views.


/yawn

If it were configured such that anyone could "marry" in terms of entering into a state issued civil contract of marriage, but only those who could possibly biologically produce children would qualify for government benefits as a result of that marriage, but if they don't produce children within say 5 years that said benefits end?

Yeah. I think that would get nearly 100% support by conservatives. Why would you think otherwise?




Yes. Of course they would. Because even though this solution would give them every single social/civil aspect of marriage they claim to want, and denies them only the taxpayer funded benefits they avoid talking about if/when at all possible, they'll oppose it anyway. Try to spend some time thinking about why.




Why is that delusional? You honestly don't see a pattern in politics of finding groups of people, and convincing them you can provide something for them in return for them voting for you (or your party)? Really? I think it's delusional *not* to see this.



You're confusing "liberals" as in people who vote/support an agenda, and "liberals" as in the much smaller group who benefit from that voting and supporting. The Democrats as a party use the issue of gay marriage for political benefit. Surely you see this? What part of "in return for political support" made you think I was talking about the rank and file liberals out there?

I'm sure that group does believe in whatever causes they've been told are important. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other reasons why those leading those causes and those championing them politically might have slightly different objectives.



I'm sure they think they do. But the very fact that so many on the left continually fail to see a difference between "marriage" as a civil/social contract, and "marriage" as a legal status granting benefits shows that the starting condition they're opposed to is questionable at best. If you can't even consistently define what it is you're opposed to, shouldn't you question what you are doing?

Here's the thing though. I don't believe you. Well, not 100% anyway. And here's why:


I've asked this hypothetical in many previous gay marriage threads. What if we changed the wording of our law, such that anyone in any combination could qualify for the legal status of "marriage". Anyone. But, we changed all of our laws nationwide so that all benefits from the government which today require someone being "married" or "a married couple" instead would read something like "A married couple consisting of one man and one woman". Thus, the label is there, the social and civil contracts are there. From every external angle, the same marriage is available to everyone regardless of orientation (or any other restriction you want to make into a cause). The only difference is that a relatively small set of benefits (and we're seriously only talking about 6 or so major benefits) would be denied unless the couple consisted of one man and one woman. Would you support this?

I usually either get awkward silence in response, or insistence that this really doesn't change anything. Which tells me that it's not about the "right" to marry, or the "label" of marriage, but is really about the government benefits. Which is strange given that most people don't actually care about those benefits. So let's amend this to say that said benefits are further restricted only to couples consisting of one man and one woman (those biologically capable of having children) and expire if they don't have children within some period of time after getting married.


Does this *still* not meet with approval? If not, then you really need to ask what you're actually fighting for. Is the cause really about equality? Is it really about rights? Is it about a set of benefits which you seem to start out claiming could legitimately be restricted only to those who can procreate?


I don't think it's any of those. I think it's about the cause. It's about pushing for an agenda that is so unreasonable in it's goals, and that you know the other "side" will oppose, then polarizing the population over said issue, and gaining votes in the process, It's about knowing that people who don't think the issue through will flock to the simple sounding "we're fighting for gay rights!" concept and support them. And the more opposition there is, the more easy it is to paint the other side as bigots and gain yet more supporters.


But the strangest thing is what happens when I propose that hypothetical. If it were true that those supporting it honestly believe that it's just about removing something which denies a group of people their rights, then why do they still continue to oppose the solution I'm proposing? It's why I tend to believe that causes like this take on a life of their own. It ceases to be about a reasonable call for rights, and becomes about continuing the fight. It becomes institutionalized and even those who should be happy with a solution which gives them every single thing they claim to want, instead come up with excuses for why that solution isn't really sufficient.


It's the same reason I argued a few months ago with Alma about racial equality/rights issues and said that it wont stop once a "fair" condition is reached. These sorts of causes are so beneficial to those who fight for them over time, and become so entrenched in the minds of those involved, that there is no end to them. It stops being about finding things in society which are unfair to some group, and becomes about finding ways to benefit the group in question.

Look at racial issues. Did we stop at civil rights, or did we move on to affirmative action? It didn't stop at illegalizing things which oppressed the group(s) in question. And even though we should all logically and consciously realize this, those who support the cause rationalize such things to themselves anyway. They insist that they can't stop now because there's still racism out there, and the only way to correct for it is to introduce some counter-balancing effect in society. You think the same isn't true with gay rights? Let's assume that this year, we pass a law granting all gay couples full legal access to marriage and all marriage benefits nationwide. You think it stops there? You think all those organizations formed to fight for the cause will just close their doors, thank their donors, and move on to doing something else? Or do you think the next day, they'll find something else related to sexual orientation to fight for?


History shows us that the latter will happen. I can't say what exact shape it'll take, but it will happen. And when it does, you'll be standing there cheering and insisting that they're right to do this.




Sure. And after that happens, they'll genuinely believe that granting them some other set of benefits will make our society more equitable and improve it as a whole as well. And then the next thing. And the next. And the next. That's the point. It's about the cause, not the thing the cause is about. You can't see this because you're caught up in it. Step away from the issue for a moment and really look at it. You might just see the pattern I'm talking about.

Hehehe

No problem from the conservatives at all!

Edited, Jun 17th 2011 6:03pm by Jophiel

The proposal to grant benefits by default and cut them off after X years if they haven't had a child meets the conditions I spoke about and is the exact opposite of what you proposed (denying benefits by default until they have children).


You honestly didn't see that?