South Africa's high court approves gay marriage

[Shawnee123]

You're the only one I take jabs at, 9th dearie-poo since your equally closed-minded friend was scared away. Everyone else I get along with quite well.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Anyway, I say that gay marriage affects me because it is designed to, really.

You didn't list any ways that it would affect you yet. You won't have to attend any gay marriage seminars; any "workplace dynamics" or other diversity stuff will be there regardless of gay marriage. Bringing everything public will also happen with or without marriage. All "obligations" that companies have to married couples are already there, so there would be no change needed to recognize a few more, any more than there would if a few more straight couples got married. With the decrease in straight marriage, it would probably be a wash over the last 30 years, in fact.

So a man not being able to sign medical papers for his lover just does not matter to me in the face of all of our other problems, really, it's not important to me. As a staunch pragmatist I do not have the excess time or energy to deal with all this emotional dithering.

Nobody's asking you to care; you're the one who claimed that it would affect you and reserved the right " to get involved in [the gay marriage] buisness". In fact, not caring and supporting are the two legitimate positions to take, because if you don't support it, it won't affect you.

[DanaC]

So a man not being able to sign medical papers for his lover just does not matter to me in the face of all of our other problems, really, it's not important to me.

Well then if it's not important to you, why should the rest of society give a shit huh?

As a staunch pragmatist I do not have the excess time or energy to deal with all this emotional dithering.

I have yet to see any evidence that you are a pragmatist, staunch or otherwise.

[Aliantha]

Whether gay marriage is legal or not isn't going to affect the fact that you'll have to attend equality seminars just like everyone else.

If your argument is that gay marriage and the associated rights which will be available to gay married people will be a financial burden on you, imagine how all the gay people who have not had access to these services and rights and yet have still had to pay a portion of their taxes to provide for others who have excercised their right to marry might feel.

It works both ways.
(pardon the pun)

What I am getting from this is that 9th is bothered by the fact that he will be "asked" to be nice to gays now. He is bitching far more about that than the money.
Also, he cares a great deal about this or he would not be posting about it.
Finally, nothing to back-up all the doom-&-gloom from anyone about what will actually happen if gays are given rights... just "something will be different"
Change sure is s-s-s-s-c-c-caaaarrrryyyyyy!

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Anyway, I say that gay marriage affects me because it is designed to, really.

So HOW does it affect you and HOW is it designed to affect you?

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

If the idea was the gays would be handed marriage licences and NOTHING would leave the house would you be satisfied?

What does that means?

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

A big part of this deal is bringing everything public now, into the workplace, schools, and society in general. I'd definately say that affects me.

Obviously when people no longer need lie, then it affects you - positively. Gay marriage is a good thing for you? Why? Will you then come out of a closet?

[Ibby]

So, 9th, youre saying its okay for STRAIGHT people to be married and let things, as you put it, leave the house, for straight people to be publicly and lovingly married, but not gay people?
That's called discrimination.
Homophobe.

& remember where homophobia comes from....

[9th Engineer]

Wow, nothing like a argument about gay marriage to bring out the underhanded attacks eh? Everyone who disagrees with you on gay marriage must be gay right? Just like everyone who opposes the Bush administration's policies are America-hating terrorists. I'm going to settle this once and for all, and if by the time I'm done you still think I hate gays then the issue is beyond further reconciliation.

Lets repeat a few ground rules, first of all I consider this a financial dispute. If gays want to shack up together and do whatever they please, I don't care about it. Secondly, 'gay-ness' is restricted to a persons sexual attractions, I will define this in more detail in a moment. Third, I can disagree with you without hating you, the very fact that I have to say that shows how low the 'intellectuals' posting on this have sunk.

Lets define what sexuality is since some very strange definitions have been floating around. Sexuality revolves around the desire to copulate, in humans this is not limited to the desire to have children so don't bend the issue. Your sexuality does not dominate other things such as your intelligence, your personality, your social skills, your likes/dislikes, ect. What I mean by that is that a person and their sexual desires are not one and the same, the later is simply one small component of the former. Therefore when we discuss sexuality we are not discussing people, unless of course you believe that humans are consumed by their sexuality and lose their free will. What I am saying is that sexuality is subservient to the greater whole of the individual.
Sexuality is also obviously not the same as anatomy, by which I mean that it is actually a chemical process. Because sex is by nature an emotional experience we tend to attribute more to it than can be confirmed by a careful analysis. In truth it's possible to separate it from the idea of love, although the two chemical pathways are obviously linked somehow. Romanticism only clouds the issue in this case however since lets not kid ourselves that we're going to be able to define what is probably the most written about and diverse topic in history other than religion. What we are left with are combinations of chemical triggers which lead to the desire to copulate as defined above, nothing more or less is concrete. So in essence this is an argument about a chemical system which induces pleasure, nothing different there from the same system in heterosexuals. All other chemical systems in the body are viewed as just that, chains of biochemical reactions. With that in mind, everything else that stems from that idea and references to similar biochemical systems are relevent to this entire argument.

Now lets move on to what rights are under contention here. We'll keep it to the legal parts of being married since we could debate 'image' until we wither and die without reaching a consensus. One argument was that gay couples should be treated like married couples when it comes to healthcare decisions and legal issues. Guess what? They already do. Although the automatic line of power goes first to family in the absence of a spouse, anyone can name anyone else as their medical proxy through an advanced directive. (Everyone should actually do this). The idea of someones gay partner not being able to visit them in the hospital is rediculous in and of itself since that wouldn't even come into play outside of someone within the ICU in critial condition, but a medical proxy holds ALL powers of decision regarding that persons health. Through a will and an advanced directive a gay person can give their partner every power that a spouse would have and there is nothing anyone can do to change it.(The family would not be able to successfully sue or have it overruled). Legal issues are the same, the partner need only be give power of attorney to make all decisions neccessary.

Another argument is that gays face discrimination in the workplace. I'm not even sure how this pertains to marriage, it's a legal issue which is already covered in many states and is spreading.

Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.

In the end, when I balence the pros vs the cons of this decision that's what I'm taking into account. You are elevating simple desire to godlike proportions, liberal application of Occam's Razor is neccessary here.

So, that's the logic trail. Laws should be built on precident, science, and logic, not emotions. Now that I've said my peace I have nothing more to add.

[DanaC]

I think we touched a nerve

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.

Okay... so from your perspective, you believe that it would cost both the government and insurance-paying-citizens more if there were more marriages--regardless of whether they are straight or gay--and thus you're not in favor of anything that might unecessarily increase the number of marriages? Is that correct?

If one is unconscious, in ICU or something similar, only immediate family... parents, brothers, sisters or their spouse is allowed to visit.
A will to non-immediate family when immediate family exists is easily contested.
If is difficult in some states and impossible with some companies to have insurable interest with a non-spouse on many types of policies (I have an insurance license and know of what I speak).
Finally, when they adopt children to raise them because those kids need good parents and no one with a heart wants anything for those kids but for them to have parents... it is better for them to have all of the above as a couple and as parents.
All of your arguments are transparent & not very well thought-out.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Now lets move on to what rights are under contention here. We'll keep it to the legal parts of being married since we could debate 'image' until we wither and die without reaching a consensus. One argument was that gay couples should be treated like married couples when it comes to healthcare decisions and legal issues. Guess what? They already do.

No they don't.

Although the automatic line of power goes first to family in the absence of a spouse, anyone can name anyone else as their medical proxy through an advanced directive.

So, your argument is that given enough money for legal fees, a gay couple can duplicate any benefits of marriage that they think of ahead of time, which straight couples can take for granted?

The idea of someones gay partner not being able to visit them in the hospital is rediculous in and of itself since that wouldn't even come into play outside of someone within the ICU in critial condition,

And that's ridiculous because...?

Through a will and an advanced directive a gay person can give their partner every power that a spouse would have and there is nothing anyone can do to change it

That's not true, and a simple google can tell you why.

Another argument is that gays face discrimination in the workplace. I'm not even sure how this pertains to marriage,

It doesn't, which is why gay marriage won't affect you. You'll have to go to diversity training whether or not gays get married.

Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.

Also joint adoption, joint parenting, and legal standing as a family member in court cases, among hundreds of other federal and state-level benefits.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

...Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.
...
So, that's the logic trail. Laws should be built on precident, science, and logic, not emotions. ...

Wouldn't it be logical then, to either do away with the benefits heterosexual marriages enjoy, or extend those benefits to same-sex marriages?

[Ibby]

9th, there is NO way at ALL in which forbidding gays to marry is not sexism and homophobia. It is discrimination, plain and simple. Seperate but equal is not going to cut it. I will settle for nothing short of full legal equality and cessation of discrimination based on gender.