Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby bigh0rt » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:33 pm

Madison wrote:
The Artful Dodger wrote:You can always convert. :-b

I view marriage as a universal institution first and foremost. You can get married in a church, in a synagogue, in a mosque, in a Hindu temple, and it's still the same relationship of marriage. Problem is, there will be some differences on interpreting marriage between the religions, some of which is cultural. This is why governments, not just here or but across the world, have power to authorize and honor the agreement of a union. It doesn't matter if in the US, Canada, Europe, or wherever, that union is still universally honored and it carries portability across nations and communities. In the US, it's a constitutional right to get married in a non-religious setting if for whatever reason you cannot marry in a religious setting. So, yes, I see marriage as a universal institution that is governed and honored by law, while religions are free to keep to their traditions of matrimony.


Nah, no converting for me. I couldn't hack being a Catholic anyway, they'd kick me out I'm sure. !+)

Ok, fun now. O:-)

How can the United States government control something that's universal across the globe? What "right" does the United States have to tell all religions and all countries what marriage is or that they are "wrong" as to what marriage is? Who will force other countries to comply with the United State's definition of marriage?

The United States government can only control the unions in this country, and as such, should leave "marriage" to the bodies that control it around the world (religion).

The same thing can be said replacing 'United States' with any religion of your choosing, and reversing the roles. AD has made a near irrefutable case for the government governing marriage licensing. In fact, this really refutes your argument about the definition of the word since different countries and religions globally define the word differently currently, and is not, as you said, universal across the globe. Seven European nations recognize same-sex marriages (using that term, 21 recognize same-sex unions) with more countries proposing legislation to start honoring same sex marriage currently.

This is all setting aside the fact that the definition of the word has changed wildly throughout history, if you're still hanging onto the communication argument.
Image
bigh0rt
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerWeb SupporterPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 24818
(Past Year: 301)
Joined: 3 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Crowding The Plate

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby The Artful Dodger » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:43 pm

In addition to what h0rt said, you might recall what I said about the term "civil union" abroad, many pages back. To your point, Mad, what will get the rest of the world to understand that a "civil union" in America is treated the same as marriage is in America, seeing how they are in the same in structure and in rights, all under a different name? Marriage is a universal rite of passage, which transcends even religion and the idea is portable across all cultures. Why else should legal marriage be called differently when it is 1) the same bond as religious marriage and 2) when there are no differences between how marriage is treated in most, if not all, countries?
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Madison » Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:45 pm

Neato Torpedo wrote:So following that, the terms "African-American" and "Negro" describe black people, so in order to be consistent, they must be offended by both or neither?

Also, a lot of the offense taken derives from the fact that it's written in law. I don't think anyone would really care if the law called it a marriage and you called it a civil union; it's that it's institutionalized that's the big problem.


Yes and no, since there are exceptions, but there isn't anything in "civil union" or "civilly wed" to be offended about. You yourself said civil union sounded "cold, impersonal, and legalese", so I know we agree that "civil union" is not offensive.

Madison wrote:It's not a given that they're misusing it. Remember the change in definition of the word computer? Once the occupation of computer was phased out, the word's definition changed to the machine we're using right now. We didn't rid the language of the word "computer" and call these machines a "flaybooz" instead.


The majority of the country has voted no less than 30 times that the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. So it is a pretty safe venture to say that if the government changes the definition, the government will be using the word incorrectly.

bigh0rt wrote:The same thing can be said replacing 'United States' with any religion of your choosing, and reversing the roles. AD has made a near irrefutable case for the government governing marriage licensing. In fact, this really refutes your argument about the definition of the word since different countries and religions globally define the word differently currently, and is not, as you said, universal across the globe. Seven European nations recognize same-sex marriages (using that term, 21 recognize same-sex unions) with more countries proposing legislation to start honoring same sex marriage currently.

This is all setting aside the fact that the definition of the word has changed wildly throughout history, if you're still hanging onto the communication argument.


I disagree about replacing "United States". A Catholic is a Catholic regardless of what country they are in and the rules to being a Catholic don't change from country to country. Same for a Baptist, and on down the line. Religion is global, a country's laws are not.

If other countries decide to honor same-sex unions of whatever sort, that is their option. But there is nothing forcing them to do so and nothing the United States can do if a country refuses to acknowledge a same-sex couple's rights. The rights themselves vary from country to country, so something someone might think they are entitled to might simply not be the case in whatever country they are in. Anyway, the international stuff is all blah, blah, with a billion problems. Christians are Christians (or whatever religion) no matter what soil they are standing on and the guidelines for being a Christian don't change based on the soil either. Government doesn't work that way.
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Neato Torpedo » Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Madison wrote:
Neato Torpedo wrote:So following that, the terms "African-American" and "Negro" describe black people, so in order to be consistent, they must be offended by both or neither?

Also, a lot of the offense taken derives from the fact that it's written in law. I don't think anyone would really care if the law called it a marriage and you called it a civil union; it's that it's institutionalized that's the big problem.


Yes and no, since there are exceptions, but there isn't anything in "civil union" or "civilly wed" to be offended about. You yourself said civil union sounded "cold, impersonal, and legalese", so I know we agree that "civil union" is not offensive.

Well, that's not exactly true. Folks of the homosexual persuasion have been dealing with stereotypes forever about how gay relationships are only for sex and not for love. Using a word that has no romance or happiness in it just happens to perpetuate that idea.

Madison wrote:
Neato Torpedo wrote:It's not a given that they're misusing it. Remember the change in definition of the word computer? Once the occupation of computer was phased out, the word's definition changed to the machine we're using right now. We didn't rid the language of the word "computer" and call these machines a "flaybooz" instead.


The majority of the country has voted no less than 30 times that the definition of marriage is a man and a woman. So it is a pretty safe venture to say that if the government changes the definition, the government will be using the word incorrectly.

I'm sure that at some point, the majority of the country had voted 30 or more times to uphold segregation. This argument isn't about what the majority wants, it's about what's morally right, and sometimes the majority is wrong. If it was about who voted what how many times, I'd have said "you win" a long time ago and slunk (what a tense) off with my tail between my legs.
Image

Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done
Rocinante2: lmao

Play Brushback Baseball! (we need more people)
Neato Torpedo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerWeb Supporter
Posts: 8618
Joined: 4 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: we don't burn gasoline, we burn our dreams

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby knapplc » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:22 pm

The more we talk about civil unions and whether the church or state should be in control marriage, the more I see this conversation veering toward an agreement on a system much like France's. My wife's sister married over there, and it was a completely civil ceremony. The church has no legal grounds to make a marriage in France - it's a "contract" entered into between two people and the state. They do it this way for several reasons, one of which is that the state provides tax benefits to the wed that they do not provide to the unwed. The church has no control over taxes, therefore no control over marriage.

If, after your civil ceremony, you want to have another ceremony in a church of your choosing, this is OK. Nobody cares, because the legal ramifications have been taken care of as far as the state is concerned. Don't want a church ceremony? No problemo, say the French.

I could see something like this working in America, if this conversation is anything to go by. Simply make every joining that is recognized by the state a Civil Union, and we're all equal. The term marriage can go away, or be relegated to religious significance alone, and that's that.
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby The Artful Dodger » Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:54 pm

knapplc wrote:The more we talk about civil unions and whether the church or state should be in control marriage, the more I see this conversation veering toward an agreement on a system much like France's. My wife's sister married over there, and it was a completely civil ceremony. The church has no legal grounds to make a marriage in France - it's a "contract" entered into between two people and the state. They do it this way for several reasons, one of which is that the state provides tax benefits to the wed that they do not provide to the unwed. The church has no control over taxes, therefore no control over marriage.

If, after your civil ceremony, you want to have another ceremony in a church of your choosing, this is OK. Nobody cares, because the legal ramifications have been taken care of as far as the state is concerned. Don't want a church ceremony? No problemo, say the French.

I could see something like this working in America, if this conversation is anything to go by. Simply make every joining that is recognized by the state a Civil Union, and we're all equal. The term marriage can go away, or be relegated to religious significance alone, and that's that.


...or we can call all civil weddings, marriage in this case too. :-b

In France, they also have a form of civil union which is sort of an unofficial marriage, called a PACS (literally in English, a civil pact of solidarity). A couple that's unsure of getting into a full-blown marriage will sign a contract and have it approved by the court. Some rights are honored, but not all marriage rights are conferred. It's a civil union, just not marriage.
Image

It's kinda like the Old Cafe - http://fbc2.freeforums.net
The Artful Dodger
Chief Wikitect
Chief Wikitect

User avatar
CafeholicResponse TeamFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 21947
(Past Year: 670)
Joined: 3 Feb 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Downloading rice

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Madison » Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:23 pm

Neato Torpedo wrote:Well, that's not exactly true. Folks of the homosexual persuasion have been dealing with stereotypes forever about how gay relationships are only for sex and not for love. Using a word that has no romance or happiness in it just happens to perpetuate that idea.


I'd say using a word with no romance or happiness shows they aren't doing it just for the "thrill". Also having *any* kind of legal bond to a partner would solidify that person and make it clear that they are not part of the stereotype. But that's just how I see it.

Neato Torpedo wrote:I'm sure that at some point, the majority of the country had voted 30 or more times to uphold segregation. This argument isn't about what the majority wants, it's about what's morally right, and sometimes the majority is wrong. If it was about who voted what how many times, I'd have said "you win" a long time ago and slunk (what a tense) off with my tail between my legs.


Morally right is to give them the same rights as marriage, but being moral has nothing to do with changing the definition of the word marriage.

knapplc wrote:Simply make every joining that is recognized by the state a Civil Union, and we're all equal. The term marriage can go away, or be relegated to religious significance alone, and that's that.


This I agree with. Giantsfan mentioned the exact same thing awhile back and the more I thought about it, the more I liked it. ;-D
Yes doctor, I am sick.
Sick of those who are spineless.
Sick of those who feel self-entitled.
Sick of those who are hypocrites.
Yes doctor, an army is forming.
Yes doctor, there will be a war.
Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
ExecutiveEditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe SpotterInnovative MemberCafe MusketeerPick 3 ChampionMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 53856
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Taking Souls...

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Neato Torpedo » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:29 pm

Image
Image

Rocinante2: you know
Rocinante2: its easy to dismiss the orioles as a bad team
ofanrex: go on
Rocinante2: i'm done
Rocinante2: lmao

Play Brushback Baseball! (we need more people)
Neato Torpedo
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
EditorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerWeb Supporter
Posts: 8618
Joined: 4 Mar 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: we don't burn gasoline, we burn our dreams

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby lastingsgriller » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

WHEW... if I was actively involed in writing in this thread, I'd never get any work done... just reading it is taking up half my day. by the way.. It's all getting repetitive and people seem to be trying to make their points stronger by simply writing longer versions of their previous statements.

As I read all this, there is one thing that is really wearing on me. it seems to be very "gays are this" and "gays are that." and "they should" and "they would." it all just seems really 'us and them' which I guess just may be the the nature of having this conversation with zero openly gay people in the conversation.

the bottom line is everybody just wants to be looked at the same way that everyone else is.

One side of the argument is gay people just want their relationship to be every bit as justified as a straight relationship. If one set of people can't get married the exact same way that the other set of people can then it feels as if they are in a lesser version of a relationship. Whether or not Madison considers it a lesser version.

unfortunately straight people can choose whether they want a marriage or a civil union, but gay people a left without that same option.

The other side of the argument is... well, I still don't really get it, but I'm sure mad can summerize it for you of you P.M. him. something to do with semantics.
Follow me on the twit! @chadmiller16
lastingsgriller
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe Ranker
Posts: 3882
(Past Year: 171)
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: ..skipping the light fandango.

Re: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Postby Art Vandelay » Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:55 pm

lastingsgriller wrote:The other side of the argument is... well, I still don't really get it, but I'm sure mad can summerize it for you of you P.M. him. something to do with semantics.

I think it can be summed up as: marriage has always been between a man and a woman (except when it hasn't) and we shouldn't just change definitions of words all willy-nilly (except when we do).
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 3:34 hours
(and 89 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact