Argh. Arguement between me and my libertarian boss re: Gay Marriage

[Madrone]

I was talking to my boss about a certain primary candidate and his positions on NAFTA, WTO, the Patriot Act, and civil rights. When I got to the civil rights discussion I asked him what he thinks about gay marriage.

Him: They can already get married.

Me: Nooo -

Him: Yes. They do it all the time.

Me: So you're saying civil unions are "okay"

Him: Yes.

Me: Why not marriage? Why deny them their right to marriage? How is it hurting you, or anyone else by allowing these people the same rights the rest of us enjoy?

Him: They CAN get married. What you are talking about is a contract, like in a business. They can aleady do that WITHOUT getting married, with the same result. We don't have to change the "definition" of marriage. They can have a legal contract to the same end.

Me: Nooo - they CAN'T be married. Not legally married.

Him: Ahh...LEGALLY married. They do not deserve to force a change of the definition of marriage on the rest of us. That is what you are talking about - CHANGING marriage. They should not be allowed to have the government FORCE on the rest of us this CHANGE in marriage - the government has no business sanctioning or enforcing these changes.

Me: ??? What is the BIG DEAL? How is it hurting YOU if 2 people that love one another make a committment?

Him: They can do that NOW - without changing marriage. We should not have to change for THEM. They can have ALL the socialist benefits provided by the government with a contract, without the government sanctioning or enforcing it.

Me: So if I get drunk in Vegas and marry some random Joe from the street in a chapel it is just and fair that I get the benefits of a married person, but a same-sex couple that has been together for 15 years cannot enjoy the same rights?

Him: They CAN get married. They get married all the time.

(you can see this is getting circular)

Me: Not LEGALLY - not recognized, they don't get the same benefits we do as a married couple.

Him: They DO. They can get ALL of the same benefits in a contract, without a legal marriage.

Me: Well, I think this whole arguement is ridiculous. There is no logical reason that gay people should not be allowed to be married the same as we are. If they love one another, and wish to make a committment to one another, it is hurting NO ONE. I just cannot see your point.

Him: So, if a 40 year old wants to marry a 2 year old they should be allowed to? I mean - these 2 human beings want to get married. Who are WE to deny them their rights?

Me: *pulling hair out* That's a BULLSHIT arguement!

Him: No - So you want to deny these 2 human beings there rights?

Me: Bullshit arguement! That's not the same thing!

Him: It IS the same thing. So you are discriminating against these human beings that want to get married. That's age discrimination!

Me: Bullshit!

Him: YOUR argument is a bullshit arguement!

Me: No, it's not! There is a huge difference between 2 consenting adults and a pedophile marrying children.

Him: There is NO difference between that and your arguement. HOW is it different?

Me: If YOU can't tell the difference between a pedophile and a 2 year old or 2 consenting adults that love one another there is no point in continuing this conversation!

----------------------------------------------------------------

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! He had me so pissed when I left. I just don't GET what scares people about allowing gay people to get married. It's freaking ridiculous! Granted - I think he's a bit of a homophobe - but he's a "socialist" government hating civil rights libertarian so I thought he'd "Get it" - wrong! He even thinks ammending the constitution to STOP gay marriages is a-freaking-ok.

Someday, I hope to be telling my grandchildren about the ridiculous behavior of people in "the old days" when they tried to keep gay people from getting married - like the stories we hear today about people of different races also being denied that right.

[dtseiler]

1. The solution is simple

Just post flyers around the office calling for a rally in support of your boss's wishes to have a pedophile homosexual marriage. Mix in incestual as well for the trifecta.

The government shouldn't be allowed to infringe on his pedo-homo-incestual wishes!

[Madrone]

2. LOL

He does that to me a lot - changes the arguement into something ridiculous and insists it's the SAME THING.

It sucks for ME, because I suck at debating. I can't always verbalize what I KNOW, or what I am feeling well enough to make my point.

[formernaderite]

11. The trick is to stop...

feeling your way through the argument...emotions never lead to logic. Your boss sounds like he's very detached from the issue, which is why he's playing devil's advocate and your falling into his lair.
My younger brothers gay, but a non-traditionalist...so he's a bit disturbed that the gay community wants this at all. He in no way wants to emulate my traditional pseudo-hippie married life, and can be a bit militant at times in his gay causes. I don't think this issue can be resolved using concensus very quickly. I would rather it percolate for a while in people's consciousness where they'll have time to touch it. Coercive forces can leave a bitter taste for much longer.

[countmyvote4real]

6. LOL Thanks, I needed that.

I was getting really frustrated with the responses of PD's boss.

BTW, Did anybody get to watch the C-SPAN coverage of the Mass debate on their constitutional ammendment? At times, it was like watching paint dry, but there were also some very progressive arguments for gay "marriage" equality.

[foreigncorrespondent]

3. When he said...

..."They DO. They can get ALL of the same benefits in a contract, without a legal marriage." I would have turned around and said to him; "Oh really?" And what about the gay people in long standing committed relationships with people from other countries, what are they meant to do? The United States doesn't allow gay people to sponsor partners for immigration."

[Madrone]

7. When he was talking about the "contract" I knew

There were some things NOT the same - but I could't come up with any. As I said, I'm a horrible debater. I internalize the info I take in, and come up with a personal position based on that. I have a difficult time spitting the facts used to make my determination back out in an organized manner - in fact, I suck at it.

That's ONE (although - who knows how he'd react to that one - not only letting foreigners into the country, but foreign homos, at that!!)

What are some other differences between a "contract" and a marriage? What would a marriage give you that a "contract" wouldn't?

I'd like to approach this issue with him again, if only to clarify these differences.

[pop goes the weasel]

12. make a practice of writing things down

Not just cut and paste.

Have documents for different arguments. As you get new data, incorporate into your existing argument. That way, when you find yourself in debate, you've already done your homework and won't feel like a schmuck.

[shimmergal]

14. Marital or partner contracts aren't limited to gays.

I myself think each couple should _have_ to write their own marriage or partnership contract, not be given a preset contract by the state about how their relationship should be set up.

Some couples do this now, at least to write pre- or post-nuptial contracts. Most of these, however, deal with the holding or disposition of money & property.

The difference between a contract and a marriage is that the state. not being a third party to the contract, doesn't _have_ to enforce its provisions. Usually they do, in matters of inheritance etc., but presumably there's no way to force a hospital, say, to honor your request to consider the partner as next-of-kin, if it doesn't want to.

[AZCat]

4. RE: A 40 yr old and a 2 yr old...

Minors, even if they are citizens of the US, do not have a full set of rights. The SC has ruled before that they do not enjoy the same rights as adults- things like censorship in schools and prohibiting consumption/purchase of certain things are constitutional.
Minors ARE allowed to marry in certain states, but there are still age limits (14 I think is the lowest anywhere). This is a red herring argument- kill it and get back to your original (correct) argument that gay couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual ones.

Edit: for clarity

[mn9driver]

5. Be specific in your argument with him:

Depending on where you live, "Marriage" vs. "Civil Union" may confer the following privileges:

1. Tax status as "Married, filing jointly"
2. Married health and other fringe benefits (some companies already do this).
3. Married survivor benefits (insurance, Social Security, etc.)
4. Right to make health care decisions (vs. other family members).
3. Joint adoption rights (many states make it impossible for same-sex couples to adopt as a couple).
4. Standard divorce protections (gay couples break up, too).

I'm sure I've missed some. By the way, tell your boss he's not much of a Libertarian.

[Madrone]

8. He mentioned survivor benefits -

that's one of the things he was talking about when he said "socialist government program benefits" -

I don't think the adoption arguement would go over too well with him.. Homos raising children? THE HORROR!

Some of the things you mentioned though, is he correct in that a regular contract, similar to a business contract, would take care of?

I think his libertarian perspective is no more government sanctioned/enforced rules changing marriage on a government level to allow gay marriage. Cuz you know - our socialist government is evil!

[Mattforclark]

9. The age principle...

"Him: So, if a 40 year old wants to marry a 2 year old they should be allowed to? I mean - these 2 human beings want to get married. Who are WE to deny them their rights?

Me: *pulling hair out* That's a BULLSHIT arguement!

Him: No - So you want to deny these 2 human beings there rights?

Me: Bullshit arguement! That's not the same thing!"

I think that your boss would have a legitimate case if the 2 year old stayed 2 years old for the rest of their lives. However, every human being goes through passes through life through the medium called time. So when you have a law that says that children are not allowed to do X, but adults are, you are not discriminating against children, because just like the adults did, they, like ALL HUMANS, undergo the NATURAL PROCESS of getting older, and after a set amount of time they will be entitled to the same priveleges.

So whereas 2 year olds will go through the natural process that every human goes through and grow up to become 18 year olds entitled to said privileges, homosexuals will not undergo the natural process that every human goes through and become heterosexual, so one cannot discriminate against them.

That is probably what you are reaching for. ?

[Madrone]

10. Good one!

Thanks! :)

on edit: I figure then he'll say "What if that child dies before it reaches the age of 18? So NOW you're saying it's okay to discriminate against human beings that will die young!"

God - he can really be infuriating.

[drdigi420]

13. he sounds like a redneck

stop trying to argue with him at all

he's a homophobe and wont admit that the reason he is against gay's right to marry is that he just hates homosexuals and doesn't want them to be treated as full citizens

his bigotry is based in ignorance, a possession he seems unwilling to part with easily

he's probably not quite confident in his own sexuality and fears that, without the confines of a social stigma, he may be tempted to explore his own homosexual desires

don't sweat what these neanderthals think, they aren't even being honest with themselves about the reasons they are against gay's right to marry