Foamy On Gay Marriage

[mrjarrell]

My favourite cartoon squirrel addresses the issue better than anyone I've seen so far and makes some very valid points. Possibly NSFW language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9KLMYaF_Xa8

 

[J_Wales]

The squirrel is like most squirrels I know.... it stands around and screams, "Why isn't the state doing more in this field?" or "Why isn't the state doing more in that field?"

Perhaps the squirrel would do well to ask, "What the Hell is the state doing out of its cage and involved in any of these fields?"

Perhaps the squirrel would do well argue for putting the state back in its cage and getting it out of fields where it has no business (such as marriage) instead of demanding the state advance its encroachment on relationships between individuals.



(BTW squirrel.... I like eating squirrels almost as much as I like eating pigs!)

 

[mrjarrell]

Foamy didn't address anything in that manner. Did you even watch? It was addressed solely to individuals.

 

[J_Wales]

Foamy didn't address anything in that manner. Did you even watch? It was addressed solely to individuals.

At second 10
At second 56

Perhaps I am a bit sensitive to those asking the state to step into the matter. I would rather see the state get out of the matter altogether.

(I did, however, like the "hot lesbian couple" comment. Nothing like a good oxymoron to bring a good laugh!)

 

[mrjarrell]

You're really stretching. Saying that a state recognises marriages is not even remotely near to being what you imply. And there's nothing even near to that at 56.

 

[phylodog]

Couldn't possibly be more sick of listening to people try to convince the masses that what isn't, is.

 

[J_Wales]

You're really stretching. Saying that a state recognises marriages is not even remotely near to being what you imply. And there's nothing even near to that at 56.

I agree to disagree.

 

[J_Wales]

Couldn't possibly be more sick of listening to people try to convince the masses that what isn't, is.

Likewise.

 

[Pocketman]

After watching the entire video, I guess maybe I'm halfway there. It would be difficult for me to find fault with a hot lesbian couple moving in next door. I'm still evolving with two guys though.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Civil rights are civil rights. Black, white, gay, straight, doesn't matter. Civil rights are being violated because people have failed to persuade, so they legislate.

 

[Denny347]

 

[dross]

I think the advocates of gay marriage make all the wrong arguments, like that stupid squirrel. You can't win arguing the issue on the ground of the people who oppose it. You can't use logic against Christian dogma (not that the squirrel made logical arguments) because by its nature religious reasoning has an internal logic with its own set of rules that you must understand if you want to fight on that ground. But why bother?

Wanting marriage IS an attempt to force others to accept you. The clean intellectual argument is that the government has no business blessing unions. The government has no business telling private companies to whom they must extend benefits.

People should be equal under the law, period. If the law is flawed in one area, creating a flaw in another doesn't fix the problem.

They should argue their position as a extension of contract law.

 

[level.eleven]

I think the advocates of gay marriage make all the wrong arguments, like that stupid squirrel. You can't win arguing the issue on the ground of the people who oppose it. You can't use logic against Christian dogma (not that the squirrel made logical arguments) because by its nature religious reasoning has an internal logic with its own set of rules that you must understand if you want to fight on that ground. But why bother?

Wanting marriage IS an attempt to force others to accept you. The clean intellectual argument is that the government has no business blessing unions. The government has no business telling private companies to whom they must extend benefits.

People should be equal under the law, period. If the law is flawed in one area, creating a flaw in another doesn't fix the problem.

They should argue their position as a extension of contract law.

I agree in principle, but practically and politically you are in left field. Convincing the block with whom you already agree, that completely eliminating state involvement in employment benefits and marriage, while simultaneously winning over your opposition? Really?

 

[mrjarrell]

I think the advocates of gay marriage make all the wrong arguments, like that stupid squirrel. You can't win arguing the issue on the ground of the people who oppose it. You can't use logic against Christian dogma (not that the squirrel made logical arguments) because by its nature religious reasoning has an internal logic with its own set of rules that you must understand if you want to fight on that ground. But why bother?

Wanting marriage IS an attempt to force others to accept you. The clean intellectual argument is that the government has no business blessing unions. The government has no business telling private companies to whom they must extend benefits.

People should be equal under the law, period. If the law is flawed in one area, creating a flaw in another doesn't fix the problem.

They should argue their position as a extension of contract law.

Like Level.Eleven, I agree with you in principle. But the fact is that government IS involved in the marriage equation and is NOT going to relinquish it's control of the institution in our lifetimes. Since that is the case, it behooves us to recognise equality before the law and treat all individuals equally. Firm adherence to that argument is just a cop out to avoid the reality.

 

[level.eleven]

Like Level.Eleven, I agree with you in principle. But the fact is that government IS involved in the marriage equation and is NOT going to relinquish it's control of the institution in our lifetimes. Since that is the case, it behooves us to recognise equality before the law and treat all individuals equally. Firm adherence to that argument is just a cop out to avoid the reality.

We've only mentioned employment benefits. Probate and children? Yeah, lets get government out of marriage.

 

[dross]

I agree in principle, but practically and politically you are in left field. Convincing the block with whom you already agree, that completely eliminating state involvement in employment benefits and marriage, while simultaneously winning over your opposition? Really?

Like Level.Eleven, I agree with you in principle. But the fact is that government IS involved in the marriage equation and is NOT going to relinquish it's control of the institution in our lifetimes. Since that is the case, it behooves us to recognise equality before the law and treat all individuals equally. Firm adherence to that argument is just a cop out to avoid the reality.

You guys make a good point. I think I might be convinced.

Sometimes the position of pure principle and the best POSSIBLE option have to give way to getting some of the principle you value by taking the best AVAILABLE option among less than perfect choices.

Yes, I think you've convinced me.

 

[J_Wales]

I think the advocates of gay marriage make all the wrong arguments, like that stupid squirrel. You can't win arguing the issue on the ground of the people who oppose it. You can't use logic against Christian dogma (not that the squirrel made logical arguments) because by its nature religious reasoning has an internal logic with its own set of rules that you must understand if you want to fight on that ground. But why bother?

Wanting marriage IS an attempt to force others to accept you. The clean intellectual argument is that the government has no business blessing unions. The government has no business telling private companies to whom they must extend benefits.

People should be equal under the law, period. If the law is flawed in one area, creating a flaw in another doesn't fix the problem.

They should argue their position as a extension of contract law.

Well said!

As you later stated, you've been convinced to settle for some compromise with the state instead of getting the state out of the fields in which it has no business being involved in.

Well done.

Now, let us set this compromise aside and move onto the next compromise.

 

[level.eleven]

You guys make a good point. I think I might be convinced.

Sometimes the position of pure principle and the best POSSIBLE option have to give way to getting some of the principle you value by taking the best AVAILABLE option among less than perfect choices.

Yes, I think you've convinced me.

I knew what you were doing all along.

 

[edporch]

I think the advocates of gay marriage make all the wrong arguments, like that stupid squirrel. You can't win arguing the issue on the ground of the people who oppose it. You can't use logic against Christian dogma (not that the squirrel made logical arguments) because by its nature religious reasoning has an internal logic with its own set of rules that you must understand if you want to fight on that ground. But why bother?

Wanting marriage IS an attempt to force others to accept you. The clean intellectual argument is that the government has no business blessing unions. The government has no business telling private companies to whom they must extend benefits.

People should be equal under the law, period. If the law is flawed in one area, creating a flaw in another doesn't fix the problem.

They should argue their position as a extension of contract law.

You're absolutely right.
The government has no business being involved in the marriage business.

To back this up, my girlfriend and I are getting married next month.

We're going to have our minister marry us, but we AREN'T going to get a state "marriage license".
Our personal beliefs are that God marries us and not the government.
(others are free to have their own beliefs)

Instead of a state "marriage license", we'll cover the CIVIL bases with Wills, Powers of Attorney, joint ownerships, etc.

We don't want our marriage to be a "threesome" with the government.

On the subject of "gay marriage", there's no legal reason why gay people couldn't do the same thing my girlfriend and I are doing.

 

[patience0830]

MMMMM. . . . squirrels. With BBQ sauce.