Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

I have said all along that it is not the government's job to decide who can, and cannot get married. It is only their job to recognise the validity of the marriage certificate, regardless of who the participants are, and to afford those participants the rights, and privileges that come with that recognition. I don't even care that it is necessarily called "marriage". You indicated , originally, that this was your issue. Fine. Call it a civil union. Call it a life partnership. Call it a carfulflargen, for all I care. But, when it comes to the rights, and privileges that come to the participants of the arrangement, you call it the same for everyone, and you treat everyone equally when they participate.

If your only interest is not having morality forced on you, you should agree with this civil, secular arrangement.

Okay, so we both agree on the principle and have a reasonable way to settle the issue, but you insist on adopting the activist approach of trying to force "gay marriage" on society instead. If you are going to demand "gay marriage" then I am going to oppose you. I don't believe in gay marriage, I think it's an oxymoron. Marriage is the joining in matrimony of husband and wife, not same-sex couples

how do you possibly get that out of my position? I never said anything even close to that.

Now on the matter of "rights and privileges" we're not likely on the same page, because I don't think the government should be doling out rights and privies based on whether or not you are single or a couple. I think everyone should have the same rights and privileges. But for the sake of certain governmental standards which we already have established, we can simply reform language to adopt a benign term for domestic partners, which leaves "marriage" to the individual to define. I'm okay with that, you're okay with that... so why do you refuse to join me in that effort and insist on cramming "gay marriage" down my throat

Where do you keep getting that I'm cramming "gay marriage" down your throat? Call it carfulflargen for all I care. No one ever gets to talk about marriage in civil law again - not gays, and not straights. Glad we are in agreement. Lemme know when you have all of the theocrats, and moralists on board with their "marriages" being irrelevant outside of their churches.

Now, you say you don't think my idea is practical or doable, but your idea is certainly not going to be any better. Half the country is opposed to what you want to do. Here I've given you a solution that you (a gay marriage advocate) and I (a gay marriage opponent) can both live with. You get what you want, I get what I want, and we're both satisfied. I'm sorry, but I fail to see why my solution wouldn't work or wouldn't be wildly popular.

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

 

[Boss]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

I still say my solution is much more possible than forcing society to accept something half of society is staunchly opposed to. Will EVERYONE go along with my idea? Nope... not ever going to have anything that is perfect, that all people totally agree with. But since I am about as conservative as they come, and fairly social conservative as well, and I am okay with this, I don't see why others like me would be opposed. But hey... let's put it out there!

Calling all "morally self-righteous conservatives" out there... let me know what you think? Are you okay with getting government and courts out of the "marriage" business and leaving it to be defined by churches and individuals?

 

[Katzndogz]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

I still say my solution is much more possible than forcing society to accept something half of society is staunchly opposed to. Will EVERYONE go along with my idea? Nope... not ever going to have anything that is perfect, that all people totally agree with. But since I am about as conservative as they come, and fairly social conservative as well, and I am okay with this, I don't see why others like me would be opposed. But hey... let's put it out there!

Calling all "morally self-righteous conservatives" out there... let me know what you think? Are you okay with getting government and courts out of the "marriage" business and leaving it to be defined by churches and individuals?

As long as no individual is obligated to accept the validity of someone else's marriage.

 

[Czernobog]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned

Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - "the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else," Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works. There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which. But, you don't get to just decide that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy". So, which will it be? Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one? You lemme know, and we'll go from there.

 

[Czernobog]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

I still say my solution is much more possible than forcing society to accept something half of society is staunchly opposed to. Will EVERYONE go along with my idea? Nope... not ever going to have anything that is perfect, that all people totally agree with. But since I am about as conservative as they come, and fairly social conservative as well, and I am okay with this, I don't see why others like me would be opposed. But hey... let's put it out there!

Calling all "morally self-righteous conservatives" out there... let me know what you think? Are you okay with getting government and courts out of the "marriage" business and leaving it to be defined by churches and individuals?

As long as no individual is obligated to accept the validity of someone else's marriage.

Why would that even be an issue? Do you, individually, treat married folks differently than you do single folks? If so, please, give me some examples...

 

[Boss]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned

Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - "the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else," Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works. There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which. But, you don't get to just decide that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy". So, which will it be? Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one? You lemme know, and we'll go from there.

No, I am certainly NOT saying anything "separate but equal" at all. The government is only going to recognize a civil contract between two consenting adults of legal age. What people call their partnerships is their business. What people recognize as "marriage" is up to them. How is THAT "separate but equal" in any way?

 

[Boss]

And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage. Homosexuals are not discriminated against when obtaining a marriage license, but a marriage license only permits a union of husband and wife. You are demanding that a marriage license recognize the union of same-sex partners. This is what people are opposed to and the source of their complaint. I have offered a solution which resolves that dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as something different.

 

[Boss]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned.

I still say my solution is much more possible than forcing society to accept something half of society is staunchly opposed to. Will EVERYONE go along with my idea? Nope... not ever going to have anything that is perfect, that all people totally agree with. But since I am about as conservative as they come, and fairly social conservative as well, and I am okay with this, I don't see why others like me would be opposed. But hey... let's put it out there!

Calling all "morally self-righteous conservatives" out there... let me know what you think? Are you okay with getting government and courts out of the "marriage" business and leaving it to be defined by churches and individuals?

As long as no individual is obligated to accept the validity of someone else's marriage.

Why would that even be an issue? Do you, individually, treat married folks differently than you do single folks? If so, please, give me some examples...

Why are you trying to be difficult? Do you want to resolve the problem or not? Why the hell do you think government has the right to tell you what constitutes marriage?

 

[Czernobog]

And, do you claim to have any other opponents to gay marriage than yourself in agreement? I'm not suggesting that your idea is impractical. I am suggesting that none of the morally self-righteous on your side of the argument are going to agree to make their marriages meaningless to the law, and therefore secular society. I'm not saying it will be "impractical"; I'm saying it will be impossible. By all means, please prove me wrong, and get everyone to agree to abolish the use of the term marriage in any, and all civil matters. Lemme know how that works out for ya.

Well, I never said anything about making marriages irrelevant. My solution doesn't do that. Marriages would fall under the same civil contracts as all other arrangements of domestic partnerships, as far as the government and law is concerned

Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - "the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else," Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works. There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which. But, you don't get to just decide that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy". So, which will it be? Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one? You lemme know, and we'll go from there.

No, I am certainly NOT saying anything "separate but equal" at all. The government is only going to recognize a civil contract between two consenting adults of legal age. What people call their partnerships is their business. What people recognize as "marriage" is up to them. How is THAT "separate but equal" in any way?

Ah! Well, then! When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage. Homosexuals are not discriminated against when obtaining a marriage license, but a marriage license only permits a union of husband and wife. You are demanding that a marriage license recognize the union of same-sex partners. This is what people are opposed to and the source of their complaint. I have offered a solution which resolves that dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as something different.

Just to point out...


............. A marriage license means a union of a husband and wife, a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife in 32 states right now.


>>>>

 

[Boss]

Ah! Well, then! When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?

I don't care what gays call it, as long as I don't have to call it that and as long as the government isn't telling me I have to call it that.

 

[Boss]

And let's get it fucking clear about what is "constitutionally sound" at this point... the SCOTUS has not ruled that Gay Marriage is a thing. There is no stipulation in the Constitution which allows sexual behaviors to define marriage. Homosexuals are not discriminated against when obtaining a marriage license, but a marriage license only permits a union of husband and wife. You are demanding that a marriage license recognize the union of same-sex partners. This is what people are opposed to and the source of their complaint. I have offered a solution which resolves that dispute to the satisfaction of all involved. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as something different.

Just to point out...


............. A marriage license means a union of a husband and wife, a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife in 32 states right now.


>>>>

Yes... that's been pointed out already. That still doesn't mean it's constitutionally sound.

 

[Ellipsis]

The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.
A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.

Private entities don't have to honor your private 'joint partnership" contract. This means you're open to many forms of discrimination and there's nothing the State can do about it.

 

[Silhouette]

Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - "the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else," Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works. There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which. But, you don't get to just decide that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy". So, which will it be? Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one? You lemme know, and we'll go from there.

Hey "Sparky", do you approve of polygamy marriage? Incest marriage?

 

[Czernobog]

Ah! Well, then! When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?

I don't care what gays call it, as long as I don't have to call it that and as long as the government isn't telling me I have to call it that.

That's just it. The government isn't telling you what you have to call it; only what it is going to recognise it as for the purpose of the benefits that come with the partnership known as marriage.

Now, obviously, if you happen to be the administrator of a hospital, then the government is telling you, regardless of what you want to call it, that the husband of this man on life support has the exact same right to decide what treatment he gets as the wife of the man who is on life support in the next room.

That's all the government is telling you. The government doesn't give a rats ass what you call the partnership - they consider it a marriage, and give the participants all of the considerations accordingly. They do not require you to call it anything.

 

[Czernobog]

Except now you're advocating "Separate but equal" - "the people I approve of get marriages; everyone else get something else," Sorry, Sparky, that ain't how it works. There are two options, in order to be Constitutionally sound - marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one; I don't care which. But, you don't get to just decide that the government will recognise marriages for the folks you happen to agree with, while everyone else is relegated to whatever non-marriage term you feel like assigning to the "pervs, degenerates, and unworthy". So, which will it be? Marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one? You lemme know, and we'll go from there.

Hey "Sparky", do you approve of polygamy marriage? Incest marriage?

Do not care any more about those marriages than I do gay marriage. Why do you?

 

[Boss]

The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.
A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.

Private entities don't have to honor your private 'joint partnership" contract. This means you're open to many forms of discrimination and there's nothing the State can do about it.

Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

 

[Czernobog]

The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.
A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.

Private entities don't have to honor your private 'joint partnership" contract. This means you're open to many forms of discrimination and there's nothing the State can do about it.

Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

Actually, Private entities can even discriminate on those grounds. I, as a private citizen, have every right to refuse to sell you my car, simply because I don't like your "Bible-thumping, hymn-singing, Christian ass"! However, when I am the owner of "Christ Haters Motors", as a public accommodation, I can't refuse to do business with you based on protected classifications. That's the difference between private entities, and public accommodations.

 

[Boss]

Ah! Well, then! When gays call that partnership marriage, then you will have no problem with that, right?

I don't care what gays call it, as long as I don't have to call it that and as long as the government isn't telling me I have to call it that.

That's just it. The government isn't telling you what you have to call it; only what it is going to recognise it as for the purpose of the benefits that come with the partnership known as marriage.

Now, obviously, if you happen to be the administrator of a hospital, then the government is telling you, regardless of what you want to call it, that the husband of this man on life support has the exact same right to decide what treatment he gets as the wife of the man who is on life support in the next room.

That's all the government is telling you. The government doesn't give a rats ass what you call the partnership - they consider it a marriage, and give the participants all of the considerations accordingly. They do not require you to call it anything.

Again... My solution remedies the hospital situation. As long as you have the civil union contract, you are the civil partner. Where this has been an issue is in states not recognizing gay marriage, where a gay partner is not given consideration because the hospital is legally obligated to give that consideration to "spouse" or next of kin. If there is no spouse, they can't consider anything but next of kin. The CU contract takes care of that, the CU partner is effectively the spouse.

 

[Boss]

The fact is that Federal, State, Local governments, as well as a plethora of other industries have a vested interest in recognizing the legal, civil partnerships of two people.
A simple joint partnership contract solves the problem. They have NO compelling interest in what type of intimate relationship that may or may not involve.

Private entities don't have to honor your private 'joint partnership" contract. This means you're open to many forms of discrimination and there's nothing the State can do about it.

Private entities can discriminate now, as long as it's not on basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

Actually, Private entities can even discriminate on those grounds. I, as a private citizen, have every right to refuse to sell you my car, simply because I don't like your "Bible-thumping, hymn-singing, Christian ass"! However, when I am the owner of "Christ Haters Motors", as a public accommodation, I can't refuse to do business with you based on protected classifications. That's the difference between private entities, and public accommodations.

True. That's basically what I meant.