For Democrats: What does all this "I'm the change candidate" mean?

[JuanCarlos]

Marriage is ancient. Show me the atributes of monogamous sodomy that bring to humanity/society those of marriage.

I don't need to. Not for equal protection (among people, I need not equate the relationships) under law to apply. It's kinda cool that way. It's on the opposition to show the harm in order to deny it.

If marriage were a civil right, then a divorce would have to be mutually agreed on or it would be a civil rights violation.

Man, what? I don't think anybody is advocating marriage when one party doesn't consent. (EDIT: Or more specifically to your argument, continue to consent.) This argument is ludicrous. Maybe you really don't read your posts before you hit "submit" if that made it through your filter.

EDIT:

You see the point yet. CALLING it marriage doesn't make it so.

Out of curiosity, what's your position on creating a legal status with all the same rights and privileges of marriage? Civil union, domestic partnership, call it what you want.


EDIT: Actually, I really don't care. I just realized that if you don't get the fundamental difference between a relationship/arrangement shared into by two consenting parties, and one in which only one consents, I really have been wasting my time. I'm done with you. If something that basic is beyond you (whereas your characterization of marriage as "ancient" isn't beyond me, I just don't agree that it has any bearing on an equal protection argument) then there's really no point.

I mean, seriously.

 

[wcboggs]

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." --Nikita Khrushchev

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." --Norman Thomas

Those kinds of changes.....

 

[CDFT]

Well if all you care about is the label "marriage" then what's the fuss. I liked Juan's option three (and I've favored it for some time): civil unions all around, go to the church if you want to be married and to the government if you want the benefits of what we now call "marriage."

Though I am very concerned about your equation of same-sex relationships as being a purely sexual thing, while different-sex relationships as being something beyond that. I was hoping you'd notice the "vaginal intercourse" jab, but either it went under your radar or you just don't understand that yes, two men can care about each other just as much as a man and a woman.

 

[Bruxley]

Well it seems that the obvious has come. There are no attributes of monogamous sodomy that equate it to the vast and powerful benefits marriage contributes to society.

The desire is for the benefit or status without the contribution/work in the name of 'fair'. This very mentality is what is wrong not what is progressive.

The only course left is to slay the massager and that has already began. The hostility and noise are back in lieu of presenting attributes deserving the state of being desired.

My point has been made. No attributes just the same Ole' round-abouts. Seems clear that same-sex marriage is, in fact, a misnomer. No advocates to the contrary can produce attributes of monogamous sodomy the show otherwise. As I have intentionally avoided religious and moral/ethical reasons and instead stuck to actual secular/human points such attributes, if they existed, should have been easily presented.

Instead, there are insults, fabrications of assertions not made, and of course 'so what.....' which is truly the weakest.

Of course, there still may be someone that can actually give such atributes.......until then I believe Zero Junk's assertion about this becoming a 'pissing match' are becoming more true then not and in the interests of civility will just hang back and see if any attributes surface.

EDIT TO ADD: Your right JC, the civil rights analogy wasn't very good. Reads worse then it was conceived. One spouse would claim that a divorce would be a violation of a right to be married and to deny him (or her) that right was a violation. Shows what stickiness making human conditions legalistic can come to eh.

I don't think less of you for giving up BTW. Flawed premises are hard to defend and I avoid such efforts. It IS genuinely enjoyable debating. And debating strong opposing views is especially gratifying when kept civil.

 

[CDFT]

Yeah, I can't counter that. You have masterfully ignored the ability of homosexuals to adopt, and at the same time refused to aknowledge how it was pointed out that heterosexual couples are entirely capable of not having children. All of this while continuing to ignore that so much more than sex is involved in a marriage by virtue of how you label a homosexual marriage as no more than "monogamous sodomy." Your ability to utterly shut down discussion by brazen statement of opinion as fact is something powerful, making this "discussion" much like speaking with a broken record.

And let's not forget how conveniently you're assuming how great marriage is, without enumerating what's so great about it. Without knowing what you consider marriage's "vast and powerful benefits" to be, a discussion such as this can't even take place. Raising children? There are lots of parentless children out there. Support for one another? An inter-human trait, not an inter-sex trait. Conservation of resources? Two men live in one house just as well a man and a woman.

And to counter your civil right "argument": Your rights end where the rights of others begin. Therefore, a true "right" to marriage can only exist when both people are willing to be married, at which point a third entity needs to intervene and say "you know what? I'm thinking you two can't get married." Saying that one person not wishing to be married violates the other's right to be married is like saying your right to self-defense when your life is at stake is violating somebody else's right to life. But of course you recognized the hypocracy in that one right away, didn't you?

 

[TheBluesMan]

Serious thread veer. Now off topic and closed.