1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

On same sex marriage and proprietary brand names

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by PLC1, Jun 27, 2013.

  1. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    10,588
    Likes Received:
    593
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.

    But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.

    Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.

    Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.

    But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.

    They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.

    The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.

    And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?

    California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.

    So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.

    Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.
     
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,818
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Why ?

    because it has nothing to do with the matter
     
  3. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    To Bad Marriage is used for many many religions, under many different forms, thousands of years. You can tradmark your own soda...but you can't trademark the name Soda
     
    Walter and dogtowner like this.
  4. Cruella

    Cruella Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,311
    Likes Received:
    726
    Whatever happened to States Rights? The 10th amendment. California voters voted not once, but twice, to classify marriage as being between a man and a woman, only to have the courts throw it out.

    Now the bigamists want their relationships recognized too. Then what comes next? The Man Boy Love Association?

    The Fall of Rome, Part II.
     
  5. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,818
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Location:
    Wandering around

    second time altered the state constitution to eliminate any vaguary there.

    many goid pount made in the descenting opinions.
     
  6. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Well if voters put back slavery should we becuse the states decided they want to?
    Peoples rights are not subject to the will of the people based on what state you live in. What if Someone decided that if your married and christian its now void in a state...would you say thats there right? what about Hillbilly Miss...republicans down there still are against interracial marriage..should that be able to be banned?

    And the MBLA jokes ...show how low and sad you are. First of all all people are legally able to marry one person...that is Equality.. So there is at least some equality there. Not that I could care if Mitt wants to marry 5 or 10...like I care. Also if your not of age, then you are not able to give consent. Your same poor argument could also be made that when they lowered the age to vote to 18...whats next 2 year olds can vote?

    Shocked you did not bring up bestiality like Rand Paul and the other nuts...Because we all know all rights given to people christians don't like then must apply to animals. Atheist have the right to sue in court? whats next Dogs can sue? Do Horses have the right to arms? oddly only when it comes to sex do right wing bible thumpers start thinking of how all laws somehow will end in sex with dogs or something. Mindless nonsense.

    PS Animals can not consent...in case your wondering....thus there can be no Animal Marriage or animal sex.



    By the way Minnesota passed a law saying all Christians can be executed...Please support it , you know...states rights.
     
  7. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    In your simple minded post..(one of your longest) You have mocked most everything I believe in! Your entire post was mindless nonsense.. there are many issues here..
    The fact is, there is a Constitutional right of religious groups not to be discriminated against by the government. Obama is just supporting the Constitutional rights of everyone. it's really fun to watch political footsoldiers (of all kinds) work themselves up into a frenzy trying to make our nation a lot less pluralistic.
    However, since you obviously bring up religious material, I am going to share with you a piece of religious material from my tradition which is applicable to your style of communication on this forum. Whether or not you accept my beliefs, understand there is a wise message in that poem.
     
  8. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    Like I said before, In actuality, NOW I support neither side in this debate. The radical identitarian Left is all of a sudden pretending to be Constitutionalists, citing the 14th Amendment as if they actually gave a crap about equal protection under the law — this canard after decades of shilling for affirmative action, PC campus speech codes, reparations, anti-male divorce courts, the subsidization of contraception by religious objectors, “abortion on demand,” etc. I have no time for this gang of phonies and tyrants; I don’t believe a word you say. My problem is that, To many of the proponents of this do not do it in good faith.

    The problem is that government and marriage need a divorce. Let them have civil unions so they can get the same legal benefits that heterosexual couples have, and leave marriage to the church.​
     
  9. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,818
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Location:
    Wandering around
    Leave the federal government out of the affairs of the states.

    The states established the parameters of marriage to satisfy the sensibilities of its citizens. amych as have communities around the workd and across the ages. Equal proitection is a farce. Even those who fought for civil rights acknowledged this.
     
  10. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    This sounds a little/ a lot like "seperate but equal" to me. I don't really care if gay people want to get married. I don't feel it undermines my own marriage at all. And if it is protection of the institution of marriage we are concerned about, we should be equally as up in arms when heterosexual people trash the institution as it is.
     
  11. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,818
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Location:
    Wandering around
    yes, we should, much as many of us were when no fault divorce was being force fed to us. we warned about that andwere ignored then too. so who was right about that ?

    do youself a favor and avoid meaningless tangents like one's own specific marriage being impacted. societies around the world and across all history have developed and maintained the idea of marriage as highly beneficial to society.
     
  12. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,541
    Likes Received:
    354
    Location:
    USA
    My understanding is that "no fault" divorce's pretty much just streamlined the process and didn't clog the courts as much. If you look at divorce rates, the trend was rising well in advance of no-fault divorce laws becoming widespread, and has been on the decline since 1980 or so.

    Societies around the world have also implemented gay marriage without a total collapse of society or social norms.
     
  13. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    386
    Lets look at some other issues, there are Thousands of special benefits are conferred by federal law on those who are married but denied to those who merely have civil unions...
    Now let's carry this line of thought a little further. Why does federal law confer benefits on married couples? I submit that the government does not provide benefits to married couples because they are pleased that you found your soul mate and wanted to congratulate you but didn't know where you were registered.
    Think back 50 years ago, the pill didn't exist, abortion was (mostly) illegal, no-fault divorce was not an option and the medical profession considered homosexuality to be a mental illness. If a couple got married, biology almost guaranteed that there would be children. That fact was compounded by a social structure (ironically pushed by progressives in the 1920's) that the husband/father would work and the wife/mother would leave the workplace (if she had ever entered) to raise the children. That is the social structure that those marriage benefits were designed to support and reinforce. The government doesn't have an legitimate interest in your personal fulfillment, but it does have a number of legitimate interests in children - that they exist, that they are provided for, etc.
    Of course, it isn't 50 years ago anymore... Society has changed in any number of ways, increased acceptance of homosexuality being but one of them, and sexuality and reproduction are no longer necessarily intertwined. Yet our laws regarding marriage retain that, perhaps now out-dated, concept that marriage implies sex implies children. And that's why we have retained those benefits.
    But if the logic behind SSM prevails, marriage has become about the happiness of adults and reproduction is irrelevant to the (legal) institution. If you accept this logic, then you ought to question at least some of those benefits granted to that institution. Why should a childless adult continue receiving social security benefits from their spouses income after death? It's not like he/she had to give up their career in order to raise the children.
    The answer to the question of how does SSM harm traditional marriage is that the basic premise challenges the notion that traditional marriage was based on and invites society to reexamine the institution an the benefits conferred on it. If marriage exists for the pleasure of the adults involved and children are irrelevant, than many of those benefits it currently enjoys cease to make sense as a matter of public policy. And that will harm those who are in traditional marriages. Have you not heard the argument that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely? If that attitude prevails, well, there's some harm.
    Now, SSM supporters saying they have a valid point because heterosexual couples (12 hour marriages in Vegas, serial divorces, etc) have make more of a mockery of the institution of marriage than the (statistically rare) committed gay couple that wants to get married is just nuts. But legalized SSM does alter the institution for the worse in my opinion. I'm proud of myself, I NEVER BROUGHT RELIGION into it...That will be my next post...
    And I find the argument that the 14th Ammendment argument that SSM is constitutionally required to be as compelling as an argument that since Equal Protection correctly forbids separate black and white drinking fountains that it also forbids separate men's and women's restrooms.
     
  14. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,818
    Likes Received:
    1,457
    Location:
    Wandering around
    there was a reason for the name "no fault". what it did was remove the requirement of a reason for divorce. so the concept of wedding vows (think 'til death' 'for better or worse' you get the idea). now simply being sick of banging this one is all it takes. is sheer hedonism reason enough ?



    whoa Captain Hyperbole ! outside europe its still rare and its certainly not improved anything in its brief history. and given the state of things in europe its hardly a ringing success.
     
  15. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    204
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Guess what , you are the one discriminated against people and Religious if you would wake up. If a church wants to marry 2 gay people...you say no my Religion trumps theres...so fuck them. And yes I mock your belifes...because your views they should be. Just like I mock the KKK hillbilly views.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice