City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[Ben Kenobi]

Strawmen indeed, Bennyboy.

Sorry.

I had to take off.

Strawman to JohnT, not to you.

[David Floyd]

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

Finally, why should the state provide benefits, if this is merely a private contract?

If I can speak for myself, I quite agree. The state should neither restrict marriage nor provide benefits for marriage.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
LoA:

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

This argument of yours has been shot down by others, namely NYE as I recall.

Polygamy exploits people.

[Drake Tungsten]

Polygamy exploits people.

I'd love to see the proof for this one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Duhhh... and the state chooses to only recogise different sex marriages, not same sex... again, second class treatment.

That's not really the issue here. I wanted other examples of how homosexuals are treated by law as second-class citizens. None of your points stand to scrutiny.

I know... but you still won't let them get married... second class treatment.

Would you force churches to marry two men to each other?

Again... you asked for second class treatment examples... not on whether gay marriage will solve it.

Second class treatment already targetted by laws. Fez talks about steps. Steps to ensure equality. Now, if in law they are already accorded equal treatment, then this is a salient point.

But that doesn't stop it from happening in the first place and is second class treatment.

Again, laws cannot prevent something from occurring, they can only deter. The fact that the state deters is a provision of equality. Another salient point.

Not if somebody outs them... plus, it's second class treatment that special rules are applied to them.

Agreed. People who out them ought to be kicked out themselves. Preferences ought to have no bearing on one's occupation.

Good... you admit that your usual argument that it will effect straight marriages is a crock...

No. I merely admit that not all problems with marriage can be traced to homosexuality.

All I can do is speculate on the effects of marriage, and frankly, all I see are negative effects. Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by marrying homosexuals?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'd love to see the proof for this one.

Do you lack any common sense at all?

[Ben Kenobi]

Because it's simply a different societal status, even then.

And this is the ultimate tragedy, Asher.

Regardless of what you call it, be it marriage or civil unions, or if you are given equal benefits, you cannot force society to give gay marriages equal standing. That is outside the realm of law, and the provisions of government.

You will receive everything yet gain nothing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you lack any common sense at all?

Appeals to "common sense" usually mean that someone has no proof whatsoever...

Anyway, common sense would dictate that some polygamous relationships are exploitative and some are not. I don't see what gives you (or the state) the right to deny these people the right to the same union that you would give to homosexual couples.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asher:

Polygamy exploits people.

So? The state does not prevent one business from signing an unequal contract, providing the contract meets with the approval of all party.

[David Floyd]

Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by marrying homosexuals?

Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by allowing YOU to marry? No? Then I guess it's OK to stop you from marrying!

[David Floyd]

BK,

So? The state does not prevent one business from signing an unequal contract

Not that it's relevant, but the state does prohibit "unconscionable" contracts or clauses within contracts. Haven't studied the UCC lately, though, so I can't elaborate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by allowing YOU to marry?

Thank you DF.

Now you see why that is an unfair question.

Thank you very much.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fez talks about steps. Steps to ensure equality.

I did? I want a total reworking of the laws. Not steps. I want something now. I want action now and I want you anti-gay rights people out of the way of the constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

This move is a step towards equal rights that have for a long time have been denied to us GLB people.

These, I believe are your words, are they not?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


These, I believe are your words, are they not?

Oops. I didn't mean step. I mean a plan of action. Well the start of a plan of action. We cannot stop there.