A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Friday, June 26, 2009 Gay Marriage Argument Chart By Diana Hsieh @ 2:03 PM Heh: a chart of arguments about gay marriage. (Via somewhere I can't recall.) Labels: Politics Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Friday, June 26, 2009 at 13:29:24 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: Alan Brown E-mail: classified(at)yahoo.com Government should get out of the business of deciding what contracts people can make between themselves and also out of the business of bestowing benefits upon people who make particular contracts. Aren't both of these things simply unequal treatement?
	Friday, June 26, 2009 at 15:23:48 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: Mike Hardy E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu If you're hospitalized and unconscious after an accident and the law allows only next of kin to be told your condition, and says that means your spouse if you have one, is that a case of the government "bestowing benefits upon people who make particular contracts"?
	Friday, June 26, 2009 at 15:25:24 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: Mike Hardy E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu One of the arguments is that fertility is not a prerequisite to marriage. At some times and places it is: the couple have sex and then if the woman gets pregnant, they can legally marry. But something tells me we won't hear a proposal to return to that practice cited as an argument against gay marriage.
	Friday, June 26, 2009 at 17:10:30 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Ryan M The best part is the actual quotes: "What's 'Non Sequitur' mean? Do I look it up in a Fag-to-English Dictionary?"
	Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 9:29:43 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Anthony "If you're hospitalized and unconscious after an accident and the law allows only next of kin to be told your condition, and says that means your spouse if you have one, is that a case of the government 'bestowing benefits upon people who make particular contracts'?" A "spouse" is not a "next of kin". The decision of who to tell of a medical condition should be held by the unconscious person's guardian. Should the law state that a spouse is presumed to be the desired guardian for a person if there is no evidence to the contrary? I guess so, and in that case "spouse" should be interpreted to include same sex as well as opposite sex couples. Are there any examples of *proper* laws where "spouse" shouldn't be interpreted to include same sex couples? I can't think of any. That said, there does seem to be a bit of unnecessary confusion with the government using the same term for a different concept.
	Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 9:34:00 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Jay This chart is a clever idea, but it is obviously disingenuous. It would be nice to see something like this where the argument of both sides was respected, so that we could get a better idea of what the actual "Argument Space" looks like.
	Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 11:05:27 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: Mike Hardy E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu > Should the law state that a spouse > is presumed to be the desired guardian > for a person if there is no evidence > to the contrary? I guess so, and in > that case "spouse" should be interpreted > to include same sex as well as opposite > sex couples. [snip] > That said, there does seem to be a bit > of unnecessary confusion with the > government using the same term for a > different concept. Where is that happening? I wondered for a moment if you meant using two words---"spouse" and "guardian"---for the same thing, but you clearly distinguished between the two by implying that if there's "evidence to the contrary", then the spouse and the guardian could be different people. But if the law is to recognize the same-sex partner as the presumptive guardian, that means the law is "bestowing benefits upon people who make particular contracts", and _you_ are endorsing the practice.
	Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 11:06:42 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Mike Hardy E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu > This chart is a clever idea, > but it is obviously disingenuous. Um.... Jay: It's a _joke_.
	Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 17:53:03 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Anthony "That said, there does seem to be a bit of unnecessary confusion with the government using the same term for a different concept." "Where is that happening?" It's happening anywhere that government has allowed same-sex marriage, as opposed to domestic partnership. "But if the law is to recognize the same-sex partner as the presumptive guardian, that means the law is 'bestowing benefits upon people who make particular contracts', and _you_ are endorsing the practice." Frankly, I don't know what it means for the government to be "bestowing benefits upon people who make particular contracts", let alone what's wrong with it.
	Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 22:35:46 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: Wayne Apparently the argument starts with the axiom "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Who could refute that? It's a perfect rhyme.
	Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 7:27:11 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: KPO'M E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net Of course, the ultimate question is "Why hasn't God destroyed Canada yet?".
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 3 plus 4 equals 6281291729531864276