Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 231
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Surur,
    I'm still wondering what you think about the limits of law:

    Do you think there are any limits on what should be allowed? For example, how do you feel about consensual polygamy? How about marrying one's adult children (whatever that's called)?
    What point are you trying to make? How do you feel about giving gays the same rights as a married couple, yet we call it civil unions?
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I think most western countries base their laws on 4000 year old mores, just to varying degrees.
    Sam, how many american laws are 'based' on religion? I can only find three.
  3. #103  
    ) Regarding the government trying to promote children from marriage - thats a good argument, but it falls flat in 3 ways 1) How does letter gays marry damage straight marriage 2) If you dont let gays marry, will they then marry straight people and have children and 3) there is a growing disconnect between marriage and fertility, since the 1960's. Maybe its time the law caught up?
    You are correct. This is the debate. Your rebuttal is much more meaningful than labeling proponents "hateful."
  4. #104  
    Some would tell you that having the law "catch up" to the disconnect between fertility and marriage would be to further digress. It is not certain that disconnecting the two was positive progress.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    What point are you trying to make? How do you feel about giving gays the same rights as a married couple, yet we call it civil unions?
    I'm just probing the arguments that laws that are intolerant are bad and that if something doesn't harm you it should be allowed.

    Honestly, I don't have strong feelings about gay marriage one way or the other. Change is uncomfortable, but probably inevitable.
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I'm just probing the arguments that laws that are intolerant are bad and that if something doesn't harm you it should be allowed.

    Honestly, I don't have strong feelings about gay marriage one way or the other. Change is uncomfortable, but probably inevitable.
    I would make the case that this admenment would do just that, harm some folks.

    Well, that is good that you have no strong feelings either way. But, I would encourage you to lean towards keeping any 'ban', off the books till this is more understood, kinda like 'Global Warming'.
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Don't know if you hate black people chuck, but it is apparent that you hate homosexuals.
    Hey blaze..

    Why would you make the statement or assumption that my non acceptance of homosexual behavior equates to hating blacks?

    Did you and da go through some sort of Devilcrat Brainwashing program?

    It's apparent that the far leaning left wing liberals and radical homosexuals throw race into the mix if someone, especially someone from another political party disagrees with your/their desire to change America from what the majority of citizens want to keep traditional.

    ie: Traditional Marriage.

    Homosexuals are not another race and are not considered for civil rights protection. Did you and da loose this concept some how?

    For the record......
    I hate Democrats who are left of center who cling to the social/communist ideology of:

    Everyone is the same.

    No one is responsible for their actions.

    The Government is your daddy.

    etc. etc..

    I don't have to accept or condone homosexual behavior or look at it in public view. You and da can cut and paste portions of whatever article you want and throw whatever hate card at me. You will never convince me to accept something if I disagree with it.

    You and da belong to the party of hate. You left of center Democrats hate people who disagree with your platform. If you can't get someone to agree with you and jump on your band wagon, you start flinging the race and hate cards.

    Me and every other person are not the same as you and da. Grasp the concept and get over it.

    Chuck
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Surur,
    I'm still wondering what you think about the limits of law:

    Do you think there are any limits on what should be allowed? For example, how do you feel about consensual polygamy? How about marrying one's adult children (whatever that's called)?
    For your two specific examples, I cant see any reason, except to reduce the pool available to others, that polygamy and polyandry should be illegal.

    Interestingly polygamy of course has a much stronger foundation in 4000 year old mores, and where its practices today its much more often in a religious context. In a theocracy look at it making a strong come-back.

    Regarding marrying adult children, I have two concerns. The first is major, in that inbreeding has a much higher chance of producing defective children, which would place a load on society (and my tax dollars (or pounds ) to take care of, and be cruel to the born offspring, whose birth could have been prevented by preventing the union in the fist place. The second is a lesser reason, but still very significant, and that is that I dont feel one can ever be sure that children have escaped the power relation set up when they are brought up by their parents, even more so if they wish to marry them. It suggests that the adult may be vulnerable in some way, and be exploited.

    Of note is that the Moabites and the Ammonites were the result of intercourse between Lott and his daughters. I dont believe any sanction resulted. The bible is full of interesting stuff.

    On that basis, pragmatically, I say consensual polygamy good, marrying one's adult children bad, and should be banned.

    Surur
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    For the record......
    I hate Democrats who are left of center who cling to the social/communist ideology of:

    Everyone is the same.
    Chuck, Chuck, Chuck!! It is called equal rights, it is in our constitution. I guess if you don't like that you are going to have to move to another country.

    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    No one is responsible for their actions.

    The Government is your daddy.

    etc. etc..


    Chuck
    Hey can you show where dems take this position?
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    ...marrying one's adult children bad, and should be banned.

    Surur
    So in other words, you hate people who want to marry their adult children.

    See how easy it is to ignore a well-presented argument?
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So in other words, you hate people who want to marry their adult children.

    See how easy it is to ignore a well-presented argument?
    Well, I still have to see the well-presented argument against gay marriage. Care to present one?

    Surur
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Well, I still have to see the well-presented argument against gay marriage. Care to present one?

    Surur
    I suppose it must not have been well-presented, but here is the baseline argument again:
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    To make a case one way or the other, one needs to examine "why" marriage and child-rearing has been incentivized (a la tax benefits) in this nation. The reason is simple. The society needs a steady supply of productive citizens to continue its existence. Having a balanced influence of male and female authorities committed to each other and to the well-being of their descendents is the most beneficial model for accomplishing that.

    Of course, fine citizens have emerged from other scenarios, but the ideal remains marriage as it has been known for centuries.
    In other words, society does not gain anything by codifying homosexuality.

    Granted, people who practice homosexuality have something to gain--potential tax benefits, access to hospitals during times of illness of loved ones, priority in probate matters, fringe benefit coverage, etc.

    However, if that is the aim, those things can be accomplished without establishing a new legal class. The codification and incentivication of marriage and child-birth serves to benefit society, not those who have married.
    Last edited by shopharim; 05/20/2006 at 02:27 PM.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Originally Posted by samkim
    I think most western countries base their laws on 4000 year old mores, just to varying degrees.
    Sam, how many american laws are 'based' on religion? I can only find three.
    Our society and culture evolved from a religious society, so I don't think you can say that our laws were really created independent of religion. Most of us grew up in a world shaped by religion. I'm not talking about just the ten commandments; I mean the values and customs ("mores") that developed when the church dominated society, how we think about things, how we decide what's right and what's fair.

    That said, a few areas of law and culture (supported by law) that show clear influence from religion:
    marriage
    empowering clergy to marry
    murder
    theft
    divorce, justified by adultery
    role and obligation of parents
    custody of children
    inheritance
    setting punishment to fit the crime (e.g., an eye for an eye, as opposed to chopping off a hand for stealing bread)
    pardons; release from jail (penitence and forgiveness)
    not punishing a child for his father's sins (could be wrong, but I think that's in the Bible somewhere)
    charging interest on loans (permitted in Bible, but not in Quran)
    respect for dead (There are laws related to cemetaries, funerals, desecrating corpses, etc.)
    right of asylum
    respect for authority (The law gives judges and police special treatment; rooted in religious values.)
    progressive taxation (There's a parable in the New Testament that describes how a poor woman giving a few coins is a bigger deal than rich men giving lots more.)
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Our society and culture evolved from a religious society, so I don't think you can say that our laws were really created independent of religion. Most of us grew up in a world shaped by religion. I'm not talking about just the ten commandments; I mean the values and customs ("mores") that developed when the church dominated society, how we think about things, how we decide what's right and what's fair.

    That said, a few areas of law and culture (supported by law) that show clear influence from religion:
    marriage
    empowering clergy to marry
    murder
    theft
    divorce, justified by adultery
    role and obligation of parents
    custody of children
    inheritance
    setting punishment to fit the crime (e.g., an eye for an eye, as opposed to chopping off a hand for stealing bread)
    pardons; release from jail (penitence and forgiveness)
    not punishing a child for his father's sins (could be wrong, but I think that's in the Bible somewhere)
    charging interest on loans (permitted in Bible, but not in Quran)
    respect for dead (There are laws related to cemetaries, funerals, desecrating corpses, etc.)
    right of asylum
    respect for authority (The law gives judges and police special treatment; rooted in religious values.)
    progressive taxation (There's a parable in the New Testament that describes how a poor woman giving a few coins is a bigger deal than rich men giving lots more.)
    I think most of these are universal throughout human kind, and could come upon w/out religion. If you needed religion to come upon most these laws then you/I are in very bad shape.
    Last edited by NRG; 05/20/2006 at 02:44 PM.
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I think most of these are universal throughout human kind, and could come upon w/out religion. If you needed religion to come upon these laws then you/I are in very bad shape.
    Are you suggesting that marriage is a "universal" institution? Is marriage something that has existed as is throughout human kind? If so, would it not be counter-intuitive to amend its construct?
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Chuck, Chuck, Chuck!! It is called equal rights, it is in our constitution. I guess if you don't like that you are going to have to move to another country.
    NRG NRG NRG

    I am happy to see you missed the big picture entirely....

    You may choose to marry or whatever with a different woman than I would choose.

    You may choose to live in another location than I would choose.

    You may decide on a different number of children that I would.

    You may choose a different career than I would.

    You may choose to drive a different vehicle than I would.

    I love Asian buffets, you may not.

    You most likely would take a different view on a subject than I would.

    So, are you and I the same?

    What is it with you Devilcrats? Are you opposed to or afraid to think outside the Devilcrat box?

    Chuck
  17. #117  
    Allowing gays to marry serves a higher purpose currently (to society) and that is the promotion of a fair and just society, where people are treated equitably and equally. As Ive mentioned earlier, not allowing gays to marry is not going to produce more or less children, so I do not find a NEW ban now justified.

    So, benifit to the society of promoting fairness, justice and equality, benifit to gays of access to the rights accorded to married people, and no downside AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK.

    Surur
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Are you suggesting that marriage is a "universal" institution? Is marriage something that has existed as is throughout human kind? If so, would it not be counter-intuitive to amend its construct?
    Being together, w/ who you choose being universal? Yes. The idea of getting tax benefits is new. I think you missed the section of my statement that said 'most of these laws'.

    P.S. I left out a part on the bottom part of my post.
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Being together, w/ who you choose being universal? Yes. The idea of getting tax benefits is new. I think you missed the section of my statement that said 'most of these laws'.

    P.S. I left out a part on the bottom part of my post.
    Being with who you choose is not the extent of "marriage" is. If all we're interested in is being with who you choose, people who practice homosexuality already have that option.

    Also, I caught the part about "most." I conculded marriage would have to fall into the universal category, otherwise it would be considered the domain of "religion" and would undermine the argument that our laws are not religiously inspired. For clearly, marriage is codified and incentivized.

    So, which is it? Is marriage a universal institution or a religious one?
  20. #120  
    Most cultures have methods of formalizing union. I wonder if there is any that do not.

    Surur
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions