Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789101116 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 398
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The majority of marraige laws and privilages apply specifically to the exclusiveness of a couple. Under your scenario, multiple wives could disagree on medical decisions for their spouse etc etc. So you can file that little diversionary arguement away under "pwned".
    Funny how you can just call that group of people a diversionary argument but another group as being discrimnated against. The majority of marriage laws and privilages actually apply to a man and woman, and may even be needed to continue to repopulate the earth, so to follow your logic the man to man union is now filed away also.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Considering how the majority of voters have felt in the past, it appears the discrimination card is the only one proponents of gay marriage have left.
    <irony>Yes the discrimination card game, it's kind of like Pinochle but without the spades. </irony>
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    <irony>Yes the discrimination card game, it's kind of like Pinochle but without the spades. </irony>
    What are you implying?
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    It does not get much simpler than, "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    And only a liberal at heart believes that and only a liberal judge will say that is right. There is no infringement here.
    Ben
    Huh? So only a "liberal at heart" would believe that ... "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    This along with your offensive sweeping generalizations kind of tells us all we need to know about your position does it not?
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    From above:
    The majority of marraige laws and privilages apply specifically to the exclusiveness of a couple. Under your scenario, multiple wives could disagree on medical decisions for their spouse etc etc.

    I'm out for a while. bclinger wore me out. (bwahahahahahaha)


    So, again I say, those are issues that can be resolved. More importantly, they are not the reasons we outlawed polygamy. Note the following segment of the US Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v Ramsey,1885:

    “For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.”

    Doesn’t this sound familiar?
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    And under the traditional norms of this country and most countries, marriage between two people is marriage between a male and a female and those marriages to benefit society. No argument there. No one is being denied any rights at all. No one. The logic is inescapable, at least for most people, as you say below.
    No, under the "traditional norms" of our culture, and many cultures around the world, marriage has been between one white man and at least one white woman.
  7. #107  
    Arguments based on emotion lose:

    NY Court Rules Against Same Sex Marriage

    In a 70-page opinion the court said: "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex.'

    "Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

    Judge Robert Smith wrote in his opinion, "The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not 'deeply rooted'; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times.
  8.    #108  
    I sincerely doubt I am offending most people here; though I do know that for some strange reason, I offend you. You definitely do not offend me. As for sweeping generalizations, your generalizations do not represent that of the majority of Americans - you will have to try much harder in your move toward the center. Your statement, "no state shall... et cetera," there is nothing I have said that would deny any person within the jurisdiction of the United States of America equal protection under its laws."

    Allow me to rephrase a bit of what I have typed. I, as an American citizen, have a right to have my views presented and enacted upon by those people duly elected to represent me and my fellow citizens. If the majority of people express an opinion and the representative takes it upon him/herself to act otherwise, then I as a citizen of this country have a right to vote against this person in the next election. If the majority of people express an opinion on a proposed law, then that opinion should be followed. I as an American citizen should not be at the whim of the vocal minority. I as an American citizen should not be at the whim of a liberal/acativist judge whom in many instances is not elected to the bench.

    We are a republic and it is based upon majority rule. We as a country learn from the past and attempt to better ourselves. Our actions need to benefit the country as a whole, not the country as a selective minority.

    Shall we give the city of New York to ...

    Shall we give Long Island to ... those on Long Island, should they pay retribution to ...

    Where does it end?

    Incidentally, what offensive sweeping generalizations have I made? To whom are they offensive to? I have yet to say your opinions and sweeping generalizations (and there are many) are offensive to me.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Huh? So only a "liberal at heart" would believe that ... "no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    This along with your offensive sweeping generalizations kind of tells us all we need to know about your position does it not?
  9.    #109  
    Is this true in Europe? Is this true here in North America? Is this true, wow, where is this true between one white man and at least one white woman? or is this another of your sweeping generalizations?

    Try again.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    No, under the "traditional norms" of our culture, and many cultures around the world, marriage has been between one white man and at least one white woman.
  10.    #110  
    Is it not amazing that at one time, the Supreme Court talked of morality and the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.

    And then along came ... and now we can do whatever we want that makes us happy. What a damn shame we have people here who take no responsibility for their actions. LET'S FEEL GOOD!

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    So, again I say, those are issues that can be resolved. More importantly, they are not the reasons we outlawed polygamy. Note the following segment of the US Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v Ramsey,1885:

    “For, certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the co-ordinate states of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.”

    Doesn’t this sound familiar?
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Funny how you can just call that group of people a diversionary argument but another group as being discrimnated against. The majority of marriage laws and privilages actually apply to a man and woman, and may even be needed to continue to repopulate the earth, so to follow your logic the man to man union is now filed away also.

    I'm a conservative (as is apparent by most of my posts), but am struggling with this issue. While I do believe that homosexuality is wrong (you are free to bash my personal beliefs), I don't believe that just because I think something is wrong; that means anyone doing it should have less rights then me. I also think polygamy is wrong even if it is between consenting adults.(again.. you are free to bash my personal beliefs) My hang-up with this issue is the "drawing the line" thing. dathomas makes great arguments and so does ben, but I still don't see how someone who is pro-gay marriage can separate the homosexuals from the polygamists. I'm not trying to make an argument here (even though I usually like to argue da thomas said that polygamy should not be recognized as a marriage since there can be disagreement between multiple partners. Polygamy would argue that first wives get to make legal decisions and that the 3rd ,4th,and 5th wife would consent to this upon entering the marriage (and would inherit such rights when the preceding wife dies or leaves the marriage.)

    I have conflicting thoughts on this issue:

    Thought #1: I have a friend who is a homosexual and has been living in a committed relationship for many years. I strongly believe that it is unfair to deny him the right to will his possessions, get medical benefits, or anything of that nature. Likewise, there is apart of me that says that I have no right to stand in the way of 3 or more people who want to love each other and be afforded rights under the law. Although I believe that homosexuals who are committed to each other deserve the right to be financially and medically protected, I'm forced to apply this right to the polygamist as well (regardless of how I feel about the morality of polygamy.) The fact that multiple-partner marriages would be very difficult (if not impossible) to make to make lawful, does not exlude their "right" to be recognized as committed consenting adults.

    Thought #2: The other side of me is less analytical and looks at what the result of changing the defenition of marriage will do to society. The way I see it, the reason the word "marriage" is important to both sides of the debate is that it is one step closer to having it be seen by the rest of society as “normal” potential family unit. Which would mean that they have the right to adopt.

    I was a guidance counselor at a local elementary school and personally saw the effects of what a perverted marriage can do to a child’s behavior. Kids who came to my office for educational and behavioral delinquency (in a overwhelming majority of the cases), lived in homes where one of the parent were either completely absent or functionally absent. If a mom is not around to act like a mom in front of the child, how will the child understand what a mom should be and how a mom is important to a family? The same thing applies to dads, infact when dad is absent form the picture it usually resulted in even more aggressive or delinquent behavior. This does not just distort their view of what a mom and dad is, but also there view of what male and female roles are (and I'm not talking about shallow issues like who makes the money and who stays home). In my honest experience, throwing a developing child into a house where the gender roles (mom and dad) are either absent or distorted, will likely contribute to that child having a disadvantage when it comes to adapting to society.

    Basically, the "family unit" has been traditionally defined as a man getting married to a woman and having children. Any "departure" from this model (including divorce) IS PROVEN to increase the likelihood of the child having developmental issues, and thus not contributing healthy values to the society when they grow up. So why push for something that simply is not helpful to furthering a healthy family even IF it makes legal sense?
  12. #112  
    [QUOTE=aairman23
    Thought #2: The other side of me is less analytical and looks at what the result of changing the defenition of marriage will do to society. The way I see it, the reason the word "marriage" is important to both sides of the debate is that it is one step closer to having it be seen by the rest of society as “normal” potential family unit. Which would mean that they have the right to adopt.[/QUOTE]
    You don't need gays or polygamists to blame for the decline in the institution of marriage.

    The folks responsible are: The "normal" hetrosexuals who live together, produce children out of marriage, marry and divorce at the drop of a hat.

    Why doesn't anyone restrict the behavior of "normal hetro's"?

    All this backlash against gays is because of the collective guilt of the "normal" folks who are doing their bit to destroy marriage.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    You don't need gays or polygamists to blame for the decline in the institution of marriage.

    The folks responsible are: The "normal" hetrosexuals who live together, produce children out of marriage, marry and divorce at the drop of a hat.

    Why doesn't anyone restrict the behavior of "normal hetro's"?

    All this backlash against gays is because of the collective guilt of the "normal" folks who are doing their bit to destroy marriage.
    Of course its important not to broadbrush all heterosexuals. But it seems to me that you're comparing same sex marriage to the very worst examples of marriage. While I agree that the state of marriage today is far from ideal, don't we want to be better rather than worse?
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Apparently, a lot of intelligent people disagree or this would have been settled long ago. In fact, some say it has been settled long ago and you are wrong.
    A lot of "intelligent" people disagreed about slavery.
  15. #115  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Where does it say that? You are reading more to it than there is and that is the problem with this conversation - you read the max into any and everything. Please point out where it says this. When I look in the dictionary I sure do not find anything close to what you write.
    You don't know that the constitution protects the minority from the tyraanny of the majority? I see.
  16. #116  
    [QUOTE=bclinger]Please do not take this wrong, but this is not back then. My family is a mixed up mess of differences and there is nothing illegal about it. We are talking now, not then. If you want to marry your girl friend, then more power to you - it is probably the right thing to do. I have and never will consider race to be a factor in marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    She's Black.




    Why does the gov't need to be involved with it??!??!! Are you daft? The gov't i already involved in it. We're talking about laws and gov't issued licenses! Jeebus!


    You are the one wanting the government to get involved. Not me. Leave it alone, keep the government out of it.

    ----------

    And no, there does not need to be a benefit to society but if you want one here Ya go, roughly 10% of your fellow Americans will have equal rights provided by marriage.


    Does not make sense.

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

    Where do I draw the line? I draw it where the gov't has already provided the right to a majority.


    And the majority likes it like it is. The vocal minority wants the change and if left to the majority, it will not happen.

    Ben
    You're kind of rambling here aren't you. I read this several times and it still makes little sense. I am generally not a stupid individual.

    Why would the year have an effect on right or wrong?

    Was it wrong to deny interracial marriage before the 1960s?

    You are a moral relativist now?

    Or was defining marriage between one white woman and one white man, or one white man, and AT LEAST one white woman wrong? Wrong then? Wrong now?

    Always wrong?

    Do you think your grandchildren will be proud of your words against homosexuals when you are gone? Will we come to believe that it was wrong now? Wrong then? Wrong always?

    I am sure you know the answer. You know what our grandchildren will think about your words.
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Wasn't the ownership of people outlawed in this country a few years back? You are justifying yourself with out of date statements.

    Ben
    When did the idea that slavery is wrong become outdated?

    Was slavery wrong in 1776? Is it wrong today? When did it become wrong?

    Do you think a majority of people supported slavery?

    Do you think they made the same arguments you are making now about majority rule?

    Again, do you think your grandchildren will be proud of your comparing gay couples to persons "shooting up heroin in the park"?

    And more importantly, what inspires your passion on this subject? Because that is at the root of this issue.
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Of course its important not to broadbrush all heterosexuals. But it seems to me that you're comparing same sex marriage to the very worst examples of marriage. While I agree that the state of marriage today is far from ideal, don't we want to be better rather than worse?
    Yes. That's why do the things that will improve marriage, not things that side-track from the main problem.

    Make it extremely inconvenient to cohabitate out of wedlock.. and to divorce. I don't mean through laws, but through societal pressure and values.

    Why don't we see ANY steps to address the real threat to marriage? How many marriages end in divorce? How many people doe we know personally who are in their 2nd (or higher) marriage? or living together?

    Doesn't that hurt children FAR MORE than a gay couple next door?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Yes. That's why do the things that will improve marriage, not things that side-track from the main problem.

    Make it extremely inconvenient to cohabitate out of wedlock.. and to divorce. I don't mean through laws, but through societal pressure and values.

    Why don't we see ANY steps to address the real threat to marriage? How many marriages end in divorce? How many people doe we know personally who are in their 2nd (or higher) marriage? or living together?

    Doesn't that hurt children FAR MORE than a gay couple next door?
    What do you think is the REAL motivation behind the passion against gay marriage aprasad?

    Do you take it at face value when they say it is lofty principles about polluting the sanctity of the institution of marriage? Or do you think it masks an underlying hatred?
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The majority of marraige laws and privilages apply specifically to the exclusiveness of a couple. Under your scenario, multiple wives could disagree on medical decisions for their spouse etc etc. So you can file that little diversionary arguement away under "pwned".
    I find it intriguing that you don't mind "discriminating" against polygamists, as though marriage was about fiscal and financial decision making.

    Just a page ago we had a least identified luv and lifelong commitment as pillars for marriage.

    But, of course, those criteria are not suficient to keep the polygamists out.

    The other problem with this argument is it presumes that marriage laws created marriage. Quite the opposite is true. The law did not create in the society the right of the spouse to act on the other's behalf. The law simply codified what was already understood. Marriage existed before the laws.

    Hmmm, that's another type of precedence.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/07/2006 at 06:37 AM. Reason: Spelling and a double-negative :D

Posting Permissions