Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 231
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    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.
    What is unjust or unfair or inequitable about encouraging people to reproduce and to raise children to be productive citizens?
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    What is unjust or unfair or inequitable about encouraging people to reproduce and to raise children to be productive citizens?
    As mentioned earlier this is the only argument I feel has any validity, especially in this day and age of negative population growth in many advanced countries e.g Italy, Japan and Singapore.

    However my simple question is, will allowing gays to marry cause any less straight people to marry and procreate. If so, how? Surely the incentives (taxes and benefits etc) would still be as attractive as before, as will formalizing their commitment in front of the community.

    It would be unjust to deny gays this right based on spurious and weak reasons.

    Surur
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    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
    I see, sorry about the misunderstanding. If you could show me where is it that 'Devilcrats' think you should be all alike, a source would be good? Or are these things that you have been told?
  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I see, sorry about the misunderstanding. If you could show me where is it that 'Devilcrats' think you should be all alike, a source would be good? Or are these things that you have been told?
    chckhbrt, isn't the whole point that people who are different should be treated the same? How would you feel if people who liked Asian buffets were not allowed into the local supermarket, but were told to go to Chinatown 20 miles away to do their shopping?

    You would then have the choice, either (quite legally) enjoy your Chinese buffet and not use the local supermarket, or deny your desire for the convenience of using local facilities.

    Surur
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    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.
    Correct, but I feel they(gays) should have the right to the same services/benefits as a straight married couple.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    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?
    I don't think has to be one or the other. Take for example you can get married @ a church, by a pastor or whatever religious instrument you choose, and it is almost always recognized by the state. But you can also goto a couthouse and get a marriage license, yet not be recognized by the church. So it is both in my view.

    I am not arguing againist that some of our laws are based religion, just that some are based on it and not all of them.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Correct, but I feel they(gays) should have the right to the same services as a straight married couple.

    I don't think has to be one or the other. Take for example you can get married @ a church, by a pastor or whatever religious instrument you choose, and it is almost always recognized by the state. But you can also goto a couthouse and get a marriage license, yet not be recognized by the church. So it is both in my view.

    I am not arguing againist that some of our laws are based religion, just that some are based on it and not all of them.
    Arnt the power to marry "invested" in priests by the state, not the church i.e. if an priest isn't given the right, you are not really married in the eyes of the law, and wont get all the benefits.

    In this way marriage has been secular for a long time.

    Surur
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    As mentioned earlier this is the only argument I feel has any validity, especially in this day and age of negative population growth in many advanced countries e.g Italy, Japan and Singapore.

    However my simple question is, will allowing gays to marry cause any less straight people to marry and procreate. If so, how?
    It shouldn't, becuase people who understand what marriage is would still marry. However, it could, because modifying the universal institution dampens its significance. If marriage is merely a legal act that formalizes a relationship, then there is no need to marry. But marriage is more than that. It is a covenant between a man and a woman where in each agrees to forsake all others to dedicate his/her life to pursuing the well-being of the other and collectively that of their offspring. It is the establishment of a physical, spiritual and intellectual one-ness that can not be replicated by two males nor two females.
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Surely the incentives (taxes and benefits etc) would still be as attractive as before, as will formalizing their commitment in front of the community.
    Here is the disconnect. Marriage is not about the tax benefits. Rather, society incentivizes marriage because of the observable benefits marriages have brought to it, not the other way around. People who understand the covenant relationship do not enter into it for supposed financial gain.
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    It would be unjust to deny gays this right based on spurious and weak reasons.

    Surur
    No rights are being denied. A universal institution is being preserved.
  8. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #128  
    Also to note from a religious aspect. Where in the bible does it state anything against gays?
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Correct, but I feel they(gays) should have the right to the same services/benefits as a straight married couple.
    Understood. I see the "benefits" as an investment the society makes in an observably beneficial situation. Marriage as is universally understood is uniquely able to provide a return on that investment. Other relationships do not provide even the possibility of that return.

    Interstingly, if in fact, it really is just about equal access to services/benefits, the society would come off more profitable by ending the benefits for marriage. Why? Because people are still going to marry. And, society would continue to experience those resulting benefits of marriage.
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG

    I don't think has to be one or the other. Take for example you can get married @ a church, by a pastor or whatever religious instrument you choose, and it is almost always recognized by the state. But you can also goto a couthouse and get a marriage license, yet not be recognized by the church. So it is both in my view.
    I find this a very noteworhty observation.
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG

    I am not arguing againist that some of our laws are based religion, just that some are based on it and not all of them.
    Indeed. However, if we would be objective, we would agree that societies have long codified their beliefs into their laws. "Recent" secularization is but an extension of that same practice--wherein people who reject deity as such are wishing to have their laws reflect that rejection.
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Also to note from a religious aspect. Where in the bible does it state anything against gays?
    Check your PM.
  11. #131  
    This is obviously the crux of the argument, so I'll try to answer it one line at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It shouldn't, becuase people who understand what marriage is would still marry.

    Exactly. So you only wish to protect the uneducated, unwashed masses?

    However, it could, because modifying the universal institution dampens its significance.

    Marriage has been modified many times through the ages, e.g no polygamous marriage, needing a blood test before marriage, increased age before people are allowed to marry, marriage in court, divorce being made easier etc. This would just be another step.

    If marriage is merely a legal act that formalizes a relationship, then there is no need to marry.

    So relationships do not need to be formalized? Contracts dont need to be signed? Rights dont need to be formally conferred? In fact they do.

    But marriage is more than that.

    No argument there.

    It is a covenant between a man and a woman where in each agrees to forsake all others to dedicate his/her life to pursuing the well-being of the other and collectively that of their offspring.

    OK.

    It is the establishment of a physical, spiritual and intellectual one-ness that can not be replicated by two males nor two females.

    What evidence is there for this? This statement may be pure prejudice. Are you saying gays dont love?

    Here is the disconnect.

    Marriage is not about the tax benefits.

    Yes.

    Rather, society incentivizes marriage because of the observable benefits marriages have brought to it, not the other way around.

    I actually think the incentives are throwbacks to the time when a married man had to support a large family and stay at home wife. These laws were made by married people to their own benefit, and are in many ways out dated.

    People who understand the covenant relationship do not enter into it for supposed financial gain.

    So why deny these benefits to others in the form of for example a civil union? Giving the rights to gays without using the name marriage should solve the problem for both of us.

    No rights are being denied.

    You've listed many rights that were being denied, e.g. inheritance rules, pension rules etc.

    A universal institution is being preserved.

    In fact allowing gays to marry would extend the institution. Instead of having less and less people marry, you would get significantly more people marrying.
  12. #132  
    Surur,

    As to my definition of marriage, you replied "OK"

    With that foundation, we can safely say that any variations on the theme are not a part of the universal institution (that includes polygamy). Likewise, blood tests and age restrictions are not facets of the universal institution. They are man made restrictions on the conditions underwhich a "marriage" will be recognized.

    Establishing a legal classification called something else other than "marriage" for the purposes of extending financial benefits is a path forward. But, it doesn't address the issue of why the benefits are extended in the first place. And that's the point I've been attempting to make. Marriage is incentivized because of the unique benefit it brings to society. Marriage does not exist because of the incentives. Marriage is not beneficial to the society because of the incentives. If the incentives disappeared today, marriage would continue to benefit society. No other relationship model can replicate that.

    That is not to say that people who practice homosexuality do not geniunely love each other. They probably do. But, no amount of love will replicate the one-ness that results from the male-female connection. No matter how much love they share, two males will never be able to incorporate female-ness into their relationship. No matter how much love they share, two females will never be able to incorporate male-ness into their relationship. And no matter how much love they share, neither two males nor two females will be able to produce offspring in and of themselves.

    Marriage is a unique institution.
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Check your PM.
    Responded.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    That is not to say that people who practice homosexuality do not geniunely love each other. They probably do. But, no amount of love will replicate the one-ness that results from the male-female connection. No matter how much love they share, two males will never be able to incorporate female-ness into their relationship. No matter how much love they share, two females will never be able to incorporate male-ness into their relationship. And no matter how much love they share, neither two males nor two females will be able to produce offspring in and of themselves.
    Those are pretty vague statements. Show me a definition of this oneness, so I can decide for myself if it only applies to straight couples. Does this mean an effeminate male, or a butch female, both straight, should not be allowed to marry. Or how about women older than 50, who have little to no chance of producing offspring?

    Obviously lesbian women can easily have children. Maybe not genetically of their partner, but they are in the same boat as many infertile couples. And gay men could easily adopt.

    In the end we find the preconditions we apply to gays we do not apply to straight people. This is where the discrimination and prejudice is displayed clearly.

    Surur
  15. #135  
    Will do. But, nap time has ended. I need to tend to my tax deductions

    I'll Be back a bit later.
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    chckhbrt, isn't the whole point that people who are different should be treated the same? How would you feel if people who liked Asian buffets were not allowed into the local supermarket, but were told to go to Chinatown 20 miles away to do their shopping?

    You would then have the choice, either (quite legally) enjoy your Chinese buffet and not use the local supermarket, or deny your desire for the convenience of using local facilities.

    Surur
    Well Surur.....

    The example for your argument couldn't be more rediculous.. There is a difference between someone being denied access to a restaurant or supermarket and expecting people to accept uniformally the bastardization of traditional marriage in this Country.

    Two heterosexual people who want to get married in traditionl marriage is not the same as two gays or two lesbians who want to get married in traditional marriage.

    It is different. Do you not see the difference?

    Chuck
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by chckhbrt
    Well Surur.....

    The example for your argument couldn't be more rediculous.. There is a difference between someone being denied access to a restaurant or supermarket and expecting people to accept uniformally the bastardization of traditional marriage in this Country.

    Two heterosexual people who want to get married in traditionl marriage is not the same as two gays or two lesbians who want to get married in traditional marriage.

    It is different. Do you not see the difference?

    Chuck
    a) You did not answer how letting gays marry hurt you.

    b) No one said they are the same. The question is, why do they deserve being treated differently? As you rightly said, no-one is the same, yet we all expect to be treated equally in the face of the law.

    Surur
  18. #138  
    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 most these laws then you/I are in very bad shape.
    I think they only seem universal. Societies that didn't adopt these or similar rules didn't survive and dominate, and so are not around to be seen by us.

    I don't think right and wrong are burned into our genes. They're learned. That's why other cultures have different ideas about what's right and wrong.

    And believing that one's values and beliefs are universal or absolute causes problems when dealing with other people who have different values and beliefs - whether it's gay marriage, democracy, or women's rights.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    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
    Very carefully parsed position. Nicely done.

    However, if inbreeding and the risk of its burden to society were adequate justification for banning marrying one's children, then one could take a similar stance against a lot of risky activities, especially one relevant to this thread.


    Polygamy and marrying one's children are banned simply because we as a society have determined that those things are wrong. People try to justify moral beliefs, and that's a problem because morality isn't developed through a rational decision process. And you can't "win" a debate with someone about their moral beliefs. It's going to take time for people with old beliefs to die off and a newer generation with more tolerant views will replace them - pretty much what's happened with racial discrimination.

    So some day, after the gay rights movement has done its thing, like the civil rights and women's rights movements, the polygamists will rise to assert their rights...

    [Okay, so now I'm making a comparison...]
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I think they only seem universal. Societies that didn't adopt these or similar rules didn't survive and dominate, and so are not around to be seen by us.

    I don't think right and wrong are burned into our genes. They're learned. That's why other cultures have different ideas about what's right and wrong.

    And believing that one's values and beliefs are universal or absolute causes problems when dealing with other people who have different values and beliefs - whether it's gay marriage, democracy, or women's rights.
    Are you religous? Cause when I said I could only find 3 laws based on religion, you were quick to point out many others that you thought fell within' that catergory. Here are some examples that I thought have no place:

    1) divorce, justified by adultery
    Would you really want to be with someone who is not being faithful to you?

    2) role and obligation of parents
    Hmmm. I am not too sure, I think this is instinctual.

    3) custody of children
    I think it is decided by who best can take car of the children, not by who is more religous. Again, I think this falls into the instictual catergory.

    4) inheritance
    Could you explain this please. The way I am looking at this statement is families would give all their money to someone else not in the family?

    5) respect for authority
    Geeez. How would society work? Hmm, that kid that doesn't listen to his father at age 1, won't until he reads a bible? Insane.

    6) Charging interest on loans?
    LOL. How do you expect banks to make money from loans?

    7) respect for dead
    Those American Indians had NO respect for their dead till the White man came with his bible and showed them the way?

    I am just saying.

Posting Permissions