Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you are not "listening" to exactly what Gav is "saying". He's not making a value judgement.

What Gav is "saying" is naive and childish. Its a restriction on freedom of choice. Its like saying "well, everyone is perfectly welcome to vote for a Republican candidate, but if you don't want too, you just can't vote at all." Clearly such a choice is not democratically fair, despite the fact that a choice is available to everyone.

It also implies that men and women are also not legally interchangeable, therefore not equal.

Originally posted by Ordo
I dont want to get into a point by point, but I have to address this.

What Gav is "saying" is naive and childish. Its a restriction on freedom of choice. Its like saying "well, everyone is perfectly welcome to vote for a Republican candidate, but if you don't want too, you just can't vote at all." Clearly such a choice is not democratically fair, despite the fact that a choice is available to everyone.

It also implies that men and women are also not legally interchangeable, therefore not equal.

Your analogy is bollocks to be honest.

All people are equal when it comes to marriage. They can all members of the opposite of sex. There is no branch of society which alone can marry members of the same sex. Thus there is no legal inequality. Thats just a fact, has nothing to do with whether same sex marriage should be legal/illegal or whatever.

To work with your voting analogy what I am saying is "everyone is equal in that they can vote for a party on the voting sheet" noone is able to vote for a party that is not on the voting sheet, therefore everyone is equal.

Your logic is bollocks.

I was also not making a value judgement on marriage.

I had two points, both of which you have seemingly missed. First. Marriage is not a choice between one thing or another. Its is a choice to participate in, or not to. We have a positive value and a negative value, you have it or you don't. This is different than choosing between apples and oranges, where there is a true choice between equatable objects. Thus, my analogy is good, because it accurately mimics this relationship. This is not to deny your (asinine) logic that, indeed, the US government will recognize any legally procured heterosexual marriage, but to say that this is not really a true choice and undemocratic just an election where individuals may only legally vote for one party (or none at all) would hardly be described as a fair and democratic election.

Secondly, if this was 1920 and certain governments didn't recognize multi-racial marriages, everyone would still be "equal", being able to marry any member of their own race they choose...just like everyone else. 😐 First point aside, such an arbitrary discretion denies that individuals are equal because one individual is not equatable with another (racially, in this case, in terms of gender, in yours).

Originally posted by Ordo
Your logic is bollocks.

I was also not making a value judgement on marriage.

I had two points, both of which you have seemingly missed. First. Marriage is not a choice between one thing or another. Its is a choice to participate in, or not to. We have a positive value and a negative value, you have it or you don't. This is different than choosing between apples and oranges, where there is a true choice between equatable objects. Thus, my analogy is good, because it accurately mimics this relationship. This is not to deny your (asinine) logic that, indeed, the US government will recognize any legally procured heterosexual marriage, but to say that this is not really a true choice and undemocratic just an election where individuals may only legally vote for one party (or none at all) would hardly be described as a fair and democratic election.

Secondly, if this was 1920 and certain governments didn't recognize multi-racial marriages, everyone would still be "equal", being able to marry any member of their own race they choose...just like everyone else. 😐 First point aside, such an arbitrary discretion denies that individuals are equal because one individual is not equatable with another (racially, in this case, in terms of gender, in yours).

No the mix racial laws would not be equal...go look for Bardock's graph to explain.

Please show me what legal right some men have that other men do not have...when it comes to marriage.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Know the mix racial laws would not be equal...go look for Bardock's graph to explain.

Neither are your gender-based laws equal.

Originally posted by Ordo
Neither are your gender-based laws equal.

They are not my laws, I didn't make them I didn't say I agree with them.

However in the US they exist. Now what can one man do that other men cannot do? (in relation to marriage?)

Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, but I'm not dense. I know my argument. I've never denied that gays don't have the ability to make a choice. I've argued that a man cannot do what a woman can (and vice versa) and that the choice between marriage-nonmarriage is a forced choice between two unequatable futures, therefore unfair.

Originally posted by Ordo
Maybe I'm just cranky this morning, but I'm not dense. I know my argument. I've never denied that gays don't have the ability to make a choice. I've argued that a man cannot do what a woman can (and vice versa) and that the choice between marriage-nonmarriage is a forced choice between two unequatable futures, therefore unfair.

We're not talking about choice. We are talking about the status quo:

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
No men can marry men.
No women can marry women.

That is equality- should gender be the be all and end all of marriage? Maybe not, fact is though even though men can't marry men and women can't marry women they are still equal in that they can all marry members of the opposite sex.

It isn't about choice, I just pointed out- in like a sentence I think- that they were legally equal.

It would be unequal if it was

Some men can only marry women.
Some men can marry women and men.
All women can marry men.
No women can marry women.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
We're not talking about choice. We are talking about the status quo:

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
No men can marry men.
No women can marry women.

That is equality- should gender be the be all and end all of marriage? Maybe not, fact is though even though men can't marry men and women can't marry women they are still equal in that they can all marry members of the opposite sex.

It isn't about choice, I just pointed out- in like a sentence I think- that they were legally equal.

It would be unequal if it was

Some men can only marry women.
Some men can marry women and men.
All women can marry men.
No women can marry women.

You are making a false choice.

A men can marry a women.
A women can marry a men.
A men can marry a men.
A women can marry a women.

...the above is more equal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are making a false choice.

A men can marry a women.
A women can marry a men.
A men can marry a men.
A women can marry a women.

...the above is more equal.

Holy Shit this is getting annoying now.

EVERYONE IN THE AMERICAN STATES ARE BOUND BY THE SAME RESTRICTIONS!

Your post is no more equal than mine- equal means everyone is the same- everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex, noone can marry a member of the same sex.

THAT IS EQUAL

they are all the same
they are all limited to the same "choice" since we are choosing to make about choice.
that is equality.

Definition of = the SAME.

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
No men can marry men.
No women can marry women.

EQUAL!

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
All men can marry men.
All women can marry women.

EQUAL!

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
Some men can marry women and men.
All women cannot marry women.

NOT EQUAL.

This is silly.

Straight men can marry (given consent) exactly the same people that gay men can marry. Straight women can marry (given consent) exactly the same people gay women can marry. It's not a naive point of view...it is just a correct one. Whether it is worth talking about, I don't know. The fact also is that gays can not marry the people they want to marry...while straights can (given consent). But before the law, straight males are treated exactly the same as straight gays, when it comes to marriage.

Why you guys choose to make such a big deal out of it is beyond me. It's really just a thing you should say "Ah, yes, this is true, but the right for a man to marry another man, if he so consents, should be given regardless".

Especially you, Ordo. You said exactly the same thing Gav, Sym and I pointed out, it's an issue of freedom of choice FOR EVERYONE, but then you choose to make Gav appear as ignorant or childish, likely because he is a Catholic (and might very well be against gay marriage, I don't know). I think above all we should be fair, if the side that we are opposed to makes a valid statement, trying to deny it makes us but look silly.

[edit] Though I do disagree with Gav that everyone is equal. Women and Men can't choose from the same set of people. Therefore women and men are unequal, when it comes to marriage.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Holy Shit this is getting annoying now.

EVERYONE IN THE AMERICAN STATES ARE BOUND BY THE SAME RESTRICTIONS!

Your post is no more equal than mine- equal means everyone is the same- everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex, noone can marry a member of the same sex.

THAT IS EQUAL

they are all the same
they are all limited to the same "choice" since we are choosing to make about choice.
that is equality.

Definition of = the SAME.

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
No men can marry men.
No women can marry women.

EQUAL!

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
All men can marry men.
All women can marry women.

EQUAL!

All men can marry women.
All women can marry men.
Some men can marry women and men.
All women cannot marry women.

NOT EQUAL.

If they are equally equal, then why not side with the argument that gives the most freedom?

However some men can marry men in some states and women can marry women in some states and the same is applied to other countries. They are equal in those states but when they move they are no longer recognized so it is not equal throughout the United States.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If they are equally equal, then why not side with the argument that gives the most freedom?

No one sided with any side when discussing the matter of equality before the law.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
However some men can marry men in some states and women can marry women in some states and the same is applied to other countries. They are equal in those states but when they move they are no longer recognized so it is not equal throughout the United States.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are not following the argument. You make an interesting point in its own right, but it is of no relation to the topic at hand, that you disagreed with Gav about.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
No it still is, it is the frame of reference that he is using as I said playing the word game. If you just use the term men and women then his statement would be valid, change it to consenting adults and then it is not valid, change it from state to nation and it is not valid, change it from nation to world and it is not valid.

I think you are getting confused here.

Any adult man can hypothetically marry any adult woman
Any adult woman can hypothetically marry any adult man.
Any adult can hypothetically marry any any adult that is not of their gender.

The change from state to nation is a totally different matter altogether.

The one point Gav was making is that Straight Men and Gay Men have the same marriage rights. And that is, absolutely, without a doubt, no hidden agenda, true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The one point Gav was making is that Straight Men and Gay Men have the same marriage rights. And that is, absolutely, without a doubt, no hidden agenda, true.

I can't believe we got two and a half pages out of this...though I suspect it will keep going...

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are getting confused here.

Any adult man can hypothetically marry any adult woman
Any adult woman can hypothetically marry any adult man.
Any adult can hypothetically marry any any adult that is not of their gender.

The change from state to nation is a totally different matter altogether.

The one point Gav was making is that Straight Men and Gay Men have the same marriage rights. And that is, absolutely, without a doubt, no hidden agenda, true.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Really I understand his point I really do but I do while it is “true” on a federal level that only a man and a woman can get “married” by law there is a agenda that it has been classified as only a man and a woman with the Marriage Defense Act as well as many other states defining a marriage as between one man and one woman.

Noone was talking about that, it is totally irrelevant to the point I made- which you contested.

However can we now all get passed this point and get back to the real issue- whatever that is.