Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 611121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 398
  1. #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Come on now. They're not being denied the right to marry? This isn't about access to services. This is about a denial of rights. Plan and simple. It amazes me that some people seem to like walking around with wool over their eyes. Nope! No discrimination here folks, move along!
    Every once in a whilw, I like to remind us that the law is full of discrimination. Discrimination is in fact the basis and intent of law.

    We, as a cohesive society, decide what we will prohibit, condone, and/or promote. The means by which we do that is the legislative process. so the question is not whether there is discrimination, but whether that discrimination is lawful--and, if so, whether that lawful discrimination is to continue.

    The bottom line is, there is an effort afoot to establish a new legal class that certifies homosexual relations, and likens it to marriage.

    I understand the logical argument that such a union is sufficiently similar to mariage to warrant the creation of the legal class. But there is nothing about marriage as is presently defined and codified that inhibits people who practice homosexuality from enjoying life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

    There are certain privileges that are reserved for people who are legally married. By definition unmaried people who practice homosexuality are not entitled to those privileges--JUST LIKE unmarried people who engage heterosexual relations.

    Similary, there are certain privileges that are reserved for people who are licensed physicians. By definition, non-physicians who practice homosexuality are not entitlted to those privileges--JUST LIKE non-physicians who engage in heterosexual relations (married or not).

    The point of the comparison is to illustrate that people who practice homosexuality are not by virtue of that practice being treated differently under the law. ALL unmarried are denied the privileges of marriage.

    The law does distinguish heterosexuality from all other variations of sexual expression. But that is not discrimination of any person or people. It is a legal construct.

    And as I said, it is legitimate behavior for citizens to seek the establishment of new/additional legal constructs.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/11/2006 at 09:47 AM.
  2. #302  
    "How is polygamy different then average marriage?
    "How is gay marriage different to average marriage?"


    They are both different then average marriage in that both deviate from the widely accepted definition of marraige (which is between a man and a woman.) I don't have time to get into every aspect of traditional marriage and how it compares to a specific variation of marriage, but I expand a little. It is important for a child to have BOTH a mom and a dad (so long as they are fit parents). This has been proven over and over again in the literature. The counter to this argument is that if the child has a mom FIGURE and a father FIGURE (reguardless of what sex those FIGURES take on) then the child is getting the same thing (or learning the same life lessons as a traditional family unit. I do not believe that this is the case, since I believe that the interaction between the famle mom and the male father is also very important.
  3. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #303  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The bottom line is, there is an effort afoot to establish a new legal class that certifies homosexual relations, and likens it to marriage.
    I disagree. The bottom line is that discriminating because of race, religion, or sexual orientation is wrong, and should be erradicated completely. Whether or not we ever get there, there in lies the debate. But *that* is the actual bottom line.

    The rest of this debate is smoke screening.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  4. #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Oh. I thought it was like a drivers license (where if you happen to be driving through a state where the qualifications for a DL are different than home, you aren't breaking the law). But then again, maybe that's not the case either. As you can tell, I'm neither married nor a lawyer. :-)
    The defense of marriage act, allows each state to deny marital rights between persons of the same sex which have been recognized in another state.

    However this too is subject to the equal protection clause of the constitution. A supreme court ruling that granting marriage licenses to straight couples only would strike down any and all such state & federal laws.
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I disagree. The bottom line is that discriminating because of race, religion, or sexual orientation is wrong, and should be erradicated completely. Whether or not we ever get there, there in lies the debate. But *that* is the actual bottom line.

    The rest of this debate is smoke screening.
    If that is the bottom line, how is it that polygamy is distinguished from homosexuality?

    On the other hand, the definition of marriage does not concern it self with the sexual orientation of those who are unmarried. Ergo, homosexuality is not the discriminating factor.

    But, for the sake of clarity, let's take this one question at a time:

    1. What right is being withheld from people who practice homosexuality?
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    If that is the bottom line, how is it that polygamy is distinguished from homosexuality?
    Polygamy has nothing to do with homosexuality. That is a false argument. You can't defend one against the other.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    1. What right is being withheld from people who practice homosexuality?
    People are going to continue practicing homosexuality. This isn't the debate. The debate is about gay marriage
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Polygamy has nothing to do with homosexuality. That is a false argument. You can't defend one against the other.
    Polygamy has to do with sexual orientation -- a factor you said could not be used to discriminate.
  9. #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    People are going to continue practicing homosexuality. This isn't the debate. The debate is about gay marriage
    Understood.

    The question remains (but now displayed with emphasis on the key words):

    1. What right is being withheld from people who practice homosexuality?
  10. #310  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I did not explore this before, and in fact have avoided making biblical reference on the topic in the past, because such mention often serves as an invitation to the unlearned to rail against the text based on specific quotes most often evaluated out of context. However, to leave this contextless assertion standing as such is a disservice to those who may be interested in learning.

    I'll provide a summary, and offer to continue more in depth discussion in another thread.

    You will find text admonishing capital punishment for various deviations from the intended sexual order. Interestingly, several other mentioned variations are likewise shunned in our culture (most notably, incest).
    Who exactly is the "unlearned" here? And that must make you the "learned"? You must be kidding me, and now you are going to explain it to those of us "interested in learning"?
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    You will also find that death is not the goal. Rather the threat of death is--with the intent of serving as a deterrent. This is illustrated by Jesus addressing a mob who is prepared to execute a woman caught in the very act of adultery. Jesus acknowledges her guilt and authorizes the execution on the condition that the precedings be initiated by the one without his/her own sin. Finding no one eligible, the execution is stayed. He who was eligible--Jesus Himself-- opted to forgive her and admonish her not to sin again.
    Thank you "learned" one, for teaching us all what Jesus meant when he stopped the citizens from stoning the adulterer, and for teaching us all that Jesus was free of sin. I feel much more "learned" already.

    And "authorizing the execution?". I think you will have to forgive my ignorance if I say it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus was being ironic when he said, "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Polygamy has to do with sexual orientation -- a factor you said could not be used to discriminate.
    Most people, when discussing sexual orientation, are refering to whether one prefers same sex or opposite sex relations. I don't have statistics, but my assumption is that 100% of the polygamists in the US are heterosexual.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Understood.

    The question remains (but now displayed with emphasis on the key words):

    1. What right is being withheld from people who practice homosexuality?
    I understood the question, as well. My point is that it's unrelated to the debate.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    I understood the question, as well. My point is that it's unrelated to the debate.
    The bottom line you offered is discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation is unacceptable. How else can we validate whether discrimination s occuring on such basis than by identifying the right(s) being withheld?
  14. #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    What right is being withheld from people who practice homosexuality?
    Assumption of spouse's pension
    Automatic inheritance
    Automatic housing lease transfer
    Bereavement leave
    Burial/remains determination
    Child custody
    Crime victim recovery benefits
    Divorce protection
    Domestic violence protections
    Joint adoption and foster care
    Leave from work to care for a sick partner under family medical leave laws.
    Leave from work when a spouse gives birth or adopts under parental leave laws.
    Legal co-parenting (Insurance, School Records, Medical Decisions, etc)
    Medical decisions on behalf of spouse
    Visitation of spouse's children in the event of separation
    Wrongful death settlements
    The right to visit a spouse in the hospital or prison.
    The right to become a legal parent to a partner's child.

    http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
  15. #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Who exactly is the "unlearned" here? And that must make you the "learned"? You must be kidding me, and now you are going to explain it to those of us "interested in learning"?Thank you "learned" one, for teaching us all what Jesus meant when he stopped the citizens from stoning the adulterer, and for teaching us all that Jesus was free of sin. I feel much more "learned" already.

    And "authorizing the execution?". I think you will have to forgive my ignorance if I say it seems pretty clear to me that Jesus was being ironic when he said, "let the one who is without sin cast the first stone".
    Let's discuss further Here
  16. #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Assumption of spouse's pension
    Automatic inheritance
    Automatic housing lease transfer
    Bereavement leave
    Burial/remains determination
    Child custody
    Crime victim recovery benefits
    Divorce protection
    Domestic violence protections
    Joint adoption and foster care
    Leave from work to care for a sick partner under family medical leave laws.
    Leave from work when a spouse gives birth or adopts under parental leave laws.
    Legal co-parenting (Insurance, School Records, Medical Decisions, etc)
    Medical decisions on behalf of spouse
    Visitation of spouse's children in the event of separation
    Wrongful death settlements
    The right to visit a spouse in the hospital or prison.
    The right to become a legal parent to a partner's child.

    http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
    Excellent list. Thank you.

    Question 2:

    Which of these rights is withheld from people who practice homosexuality on the basis of that practice?
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Excellent list. Thank you.

    Question 2:

    Which of these rights is withheld from people who practice homosexuality on the basis of that practice?
    Why are you attempting to get into a logic arguement which doesn't apply?

    This will happen. It will likely be called civil unions but it will happen. The fact that this thread has gone on this long is simply proof that Rove knows his hot-button issues.
  18. #318  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Why are you attempting to get into a logic arguement which doesn't apply?

    This will happen. It will likely be called civil unions but it will happen. The fact that this thread has gone on this long is simply proof that Rove knows his hot-button issues.
    I suspect it will happen as well (I also suspect we reached that similar conclusion for different reasons). That does not negate the value of discussing the merits of the action. It also does not negate the value of discussing the possible implications of the action.

    The fact that this thread has gone on this long is simply proof that others on the forum see value in the discussion as well. There might even be some conversions along the way (you specifically have helped me reshape my views in significant ways on other topics).


    But....since we're discussing it, which logical argument doesn't apply?
  19. #319  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I suspect it will happen as well (I also suspect we reached that similar conclusion for different reasons). That does not negate the value of discussing the merits of the action. It also does not negate the value of discussing the possible implications of the action.

    The fact that this thread has gone on this long is simply proof that others on the forum see value in the discussion as well. There might even be some conversions along the way (you specifically have helped me reshape my views in significant ways on other topics).


    But....since we're discussing it, which logical argument doesn't apply?
    Attempting to seperate homosexual behavior from denying the specific rights/privelages listed.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #320  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The bottom line you offered is discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation is unacceptable. How else can we validate whether discrimination s occuring on such basis than by identifying the right(s) being withheld?
    I will try this once more. This is about gay marriage. It is currently illegal, that is, gays are denied the right to marry one another. How is that *not* discriminatory?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Posting Permissions