Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 139
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Right, this crux will play out for the next 5 - 7 years and will eventually be what I think should occur. No marriage license for gays, but with rights.
    Your missing my point. It's a legal status obtained from the State. Courts will rule it cannot be denied to gay couples willing to make the same exclusive commitment. Unless the exact same rights inderr the law are issued with a "civil union" license which eventually the two licenses would bleed together and likely the State licence would then be called Civil Union license and "marriage" ceremonies would occur in people's churches in which case there would still be gay marriages so you really should just get used to the idea.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    However, it is also an expression of the will of a significant number of citizens, and it is worthy of debate.
    Yes, and very recently it was illegal for me to marry my girlfriend. Luckily for her (i would say "us" but what guy is 'eager' to get married), some activist courts declared those laws unconstitutional.
  3. #63  
    You have a girlfriend I respectfully will not refer to you as a Queen any longer, I thought you had a vested interest in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, and very recently it was illegal for me to marry my girlfriend. Luckily for her (i would say "us" but what guy is 'eager' to get married), some activist courts declared those laws unconstitutional.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    You have a girlfriend I respectfully will not refer to you as a Queen any longer, I thought you had a vested interest in this thread.


    I have a vested interest in universal justice.

  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yes, and very recently it was illegal for me to marry my girlfriend. Luckily for her (i would say "us" but what guy is 'eager' to get married), some activist courts declared those laws unconstitutional.
    Understood.

    I didn't join this discussion to re-hash the arguments. The only reason I joined this discussion is because a different angle was brought up, namely the legal logical arguments for or against other sexual preferences.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Understood.

    I didn't join this discussion to re-hash the arguments. The only reason I joined this discussion is because a different angle was brought up, namely the legal logical arguments for or against other sexual preferences.
    I may have missed your post, but I have not seen your argument expressed yet. Care to lay it out?

    Surur
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Just as inter-racial marriage. Disgust is not an argument.
    Agreed. Disgust has no legal basis.

    The issue that was raised is the question of whether soceity can continually ban other sexual behaviors, and if so on what legal or logical basis. The pro homosexual movement has demonstrated how to transition public opinion from disgust to acceptance and to make the legal transition from prohibition to legitimacy.

    So, what is to stop "Man-Boy" love advocates, for example, from making the same journey (only faster)?

    Since we've agreed that "disgust" is no basis for legal action, what position can the society take? ADvocates will undoubtedly point to the legitimization of homosexuality as legal precedence for any and all other sexual behaviors...unless someone makes a logical and legal argument against.

    Of course, the gerrymandering that must come in is that of making an argument that prohobits that which is "disgusting" without infringing on that which "used to be disgusting."
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I may have missed your post, but I have not seen your argument expressed yet. Care to lay it out?

    Surur
    My case regarding "homosexual marriage" was published in another thread.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So, what is to stop "Man-Boy" love advocates, for example, from making the same journey (only faster)?
    I think it's been stated here that children are not afforded the rights under legal marriage and by definition of, I'm pretty sure every State, one must be an adult to enter into the binding agreement of marriage.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #70  
    Your Man-boy argument doesn't wash. What about Man-girl relationships? Statutory rape.... last I heard that carried some fairly tough penalties. That somehow gay marriage will make that more acceptable is silly
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The issue that was raised is the question of whether soceity can continually ban other sexual behaviors, and if so on what legal or logical basis.
    Basically the slippery slope argument.

    The objections to homosexual unions is unrelated to the objections to sex with children. I wont pretend to understand the whole area of objection to gays, but the issue with children has always been to protect the vulnerable.

    The Man-boy thing seems to be appealing to the same anti-gay sentiments (why not man-girl?) but the issue really is one of legitimate consent. A child can not consent in the same way as an adult, on an equal negotiating basis. Even when both are adults there is still an unequal power relationship going on. This is the same reason for example psychiatrists or therapists can not go out with their clients, or professors with their students.

    In summary, gays and pedophilia relationships are two different issues, and not on the same slippery slope.

    Lastly, USA does not need to wonder about the slippery slope, and where its going. Being that they are about 10 years behind the attitudes in the rest of the liberal world they can just look around and see what happened. Same sex marriage was first legalized in 2001 in the Netherlands. Despite being a notoriously liberal country, especially regarding sexual practices, this did not make the Netherlands a haven for pedophiles. Again, this implies that absence of a slippery slope between the two issues.

    Surur
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #72  
    Humor Break. Here is a phone call to make you folks laugh a bit.


    Source: C&L Audio of call at link

    Corporal Bill is back: Sen. Crapo call

    Corporal Bill of C&L is the king of prank phone calls and is back in action. You might remember when he got through to Karl Rove's office?

    He was able to contact Sen. Crapo's office today and ask about the Marriage Protection Amendment.

    Is Senator Crapo in favor of traditional marriage?
    Yes he is, he's a cosponsor of the bill.
    He is? Can you tell me if he masturbates?
    I could not tell you that.
    Can you tell me, do you masturbate?
    I cannot tell you that either.
    Can you tell me, does he commit sodomy, analingus, cunnilingus or fellatio?
    What is the purpose of this questioning?
    It's regarding his views on traditional marriage.
    Okay, he supports the bill.
    Yes, but could you tell me does he commit sodomy?
    I could not give you an answer on that.
    Is he willing to pledge that he has not or will not commit sodomy?
    I could not answer that.
    Has he ever had sex before or outside of marriage?
    Again, sir, what is the point of this questioning?
    It's regarding traditional marriage and how far his support goes.
    Any one of those questions I could not answer.
    Have you ever had sex outside of marriage?
    Again, I will not answer that.
    It's nobody's business, right?
    That's right.
    Okay, thank you.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I think it's been stated here that children are not afforded the rights under legal marriage and by definition of, I'm pretty sure every State, one must be an adult to enter into the binding agreement of marriage.
    Agreed. In fact, I am not aware of advocates seeking a legal state. Rather, they are seeking permission without impunity.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Agreed. In fact, I am not aware of advocates seeking a legal state. Rather, they are seeking permission without impunity.
    I'm not sure what that means?
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Your Man-boy argument doesn't wash. What about Man-girl relationships? Statutory rape.... last I heard that carried some fairly tough penalties. That somehow gay marriage will make that more acceptable is silly
    I did not say these behaviors would be more acceptable. I am commenting on aprasad's quandry.

    The matter of homosexual union is not being argued on the basis of acceptability. The argument is legal discrimination.

    So, on what basis do you discriminate against those who are biologically predisposed to expressing their sexuality with adolescents?
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not sure what that means?
    And you'd be correct!
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I did not say these behaviors would be more acceptable. I am commenting on aprasad's quandry.

    The matter of homosexual union is not being argued on the basis of acceptability. The argument is legal discrimination.

    So, on what basis do you discriminate against those who are biologically predisposed to expressing their sexuality with adolescents?
    I think 'discriminate' is a bit light compared to what I'd actually like to see happen to them...
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'm not sure what that means?
    He means letting gays marry will cause the collapse of out whole framework of child-protection laws, meaning anything goes.

    Surur
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Basically the slippery slope argument.

    The objections to homosexual unions is unrelated to the objections to sex with children. I wont pretend to understand the whole area of objection to gays, but the issue with children has always been to protect the vulnerable.

    The Man-boy thing seems to be appealing to the same anti-gay sentiments (why not man-girl?) but the issue really is one of legitimate consent. A child can not consent in the same way as an adult, on an equal negotiating basis. Even when both are adults there is still an unequal power relationship going on. This is the same reason for example psychiatrists or therapists can not go out with their clients, or professors with their students.

    In summary, gays and pedophilia relationships are two different issues, and not on the same slippery slope.

    Lastly, USA does not need to wonder about the slippery slope, and where its going. Being that they are about 10 years behind the attitudes in the rest of the liberal world they can just look around and see what happened. Same sex marriage was first legalized in 2001 in the Netherlands. Despite being a notoriously liberal country, especially regarding sexual practices, this did not make the Netherlands a haven for pedophiles. Again, this implies that absence of a slippery slope between the two issues.

    Surur
    From my perspective, "slippery slope" is not automatic. Rather, it is not difficult to see the legal argument that advocates of various lifestyles could and likely would advance.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    He means letting gays marry will cause the collapse of out whole framework of child-protection laws, meaning anything goes.

    Surur
    "He" is able to speak for himself.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions