Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 170
  1. #61  
    I didn't say that you had a fascination with anything, DL. I think you've very clearly and articulately laid out your position.

    I merely have pointed out the central theme of my concerns with your position - the legal (and IMO, moral) position that "separate but equal" doesn't exist, and the fact that conception isn't (again, my opinion only) a defining characteristic of marriage. As others have pointed out, it has, for most of history, been a union based upon property rights.

    Since your opinion and mine obviously differ, and you seem to feel that you're being personally attacked, I'll let the issue drop (although, to be fair, you could have done the same at any point in the conversation if you felt that you were being unfairly treated).
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I didn't say that you had a fascination with anything, DL.
    My apologies, I did a poor job of interpreting what you said; you in fact did not point to me.

    I think you've very clearly and articulately laid out your position.
    This is much appreciated.

    As others have pointed out, it has, for most of history, been a union based upon property rights.
    Yes and only in recent history has waned from childbirth (to further bloodlines, etc).

    Since your opinion and mine obviously differ, and you seem to feel that you're being personally attacked, I'll let the issue drop (although, to be fair, you could have done the same at any point in the conversation if you felt that you were being unfairly treated).
    Nah, not unfairly.


    I really struggle more with toning down my own posts than I do with any feelings of unfair treatment. I do so apologize if I have appeared overly antagonistic and abrasive (which I'm sure I did).
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'm suggesting that heterosexual couples qualify for a marriage, and homosexuals qualify for a civil union--which again, only differs in name (at least as far as the law is concerned).
    If it "only" differs in name, why call it something else?

    That is the "problem" with your argument....

    edit:

    Marriage deals with "church" but it is built into our legal and business systems.... in this instance (for the most part) church and state are not separate. That, I think, is the major flaw in your argument... and in most arguments I hear. That and compassion for fellow man (for those who are different), but that is attacking.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    If it "only" differs in name, why call it something else?

    That is the "problem" with your argument....

    edit:

    Marriage deals with "church" but it is built into our legal and business systems.... in this instance (for the most part) church and state are not separate. That, I think, is the major flaw in your argument... and in most arguments I hear. That and compassion for fellow man (for those who are different), but that is attacking.
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...6&postcount=54

    If you aren't going to pay attention to the conversation, at least have the courtesy to refrain from posting. I mean, I already answered that question less than 10 posts ago.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Actually, I’m not; you are just picking and choosing what portion of text to respond to. In addition to the above statement, I also stated this:

    “. . . is an issue of properly defining the joining of two people based on inherent functionality of each type.”

    In other words, I grouped them together and instead of trying to look at all possible anomalies, chose—as I stated quite clearly—the inherent potential of each type. The fact is there exist zero potential for a same-sex couple to reproduce within the sole confines of their relationship. On the other hand, within opposite sex couples there exist a high probability of it and any instance that cannot is considered an anomaly (or an abnormality). Where you and I differ is that I actually held the same standard for measuring both types of relationships—I said inherent potential.



    Strawman. Nothing I said suggested necessity for nomenclature—argue that point with someone who actually went down that road. Besides, I managed to express my view without religion—can’t you?



    Do different water fountains, bathrooms and lunch counters relate to function in anyway?

    The answer is no—sort of. I mean, we do have separate bathrooms for males and females . . . who oddly enough are aptly named differently (male & female) based upon . . . . that’s right being different and yet are viewed as equal—go figure.



    I think you are missing the point and possibly need to scroll back and read over my previous comments regarding same-sex marriages. As I previously lined out, same-sex couples would be offered the same protections as opposite sex couples under the law. I have already stated a methodology that provides equality through taxes, medical decisions, hospital visitations and private property (think: how we treat).

    At this point, I am merely pointing out why I prefer to use certain terms to describe certain relationships—which is because by nature, I am a pedant and has nothing to do with your baseless, unfounded accusation of being prejudice.




    I agree that such does happen; however, I do not accept the idea that heterosexual couples fall within the scope of a civil union. If you are heterosexual, it is a marriage; if you are homosexual, it is a civil union. Both are entitled to the same provisions in society (as I see it), and the only difference is what label goes with who.
    I'm sorry, I'm not going to go point-by-point, because it would be pointless to do so. You're now arguing that what you said isn't what you said. You're the one that raise the ability to have children as an issue, then say that's not what your argument is based on. You continue to try to split hairs to justify a bias, but the hairs are getting so fine everyone but you can see through them.

    You're rationalization of "different" vs. "separate" is, frankly, absurd. It's playing semantics, and nothing more.

    As for religion, I raise it because religion is, very simply, the basis for this prejudice against gays and gay marriage. All the other arguments against it come down to rationalizations. The opposition and support for gay marriage splits mostly down religious lines.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    You're now arguing that what you said isn't what you said. You're the one that raise the ability to have children as an issue, then say that's not what your argument is based on.
    Umm, no. I raised the ability to have children in regards to the type of relationship and not individual relationships. I did so quite a number of posts ago, so it isn’t anything new.

    You're rationalization of "different" vs. "separate" is, frankly, absurd. It's playing semantics, and nothing more.
    Not really, you just want it to be. These nonsensical correlations to drinking fountains are absurd. Even more absurd is dismissing the notion the ability to bear children is import when the ultimate question is: Are same-sex relationships the same as heterosexual relationships? The answer is patently no. Why? One relationship, unless impeded by an anomaly, can produce offspring. The other, no matter what one does, it (the relationship) cannot ever produce children.

    Do they have to produce children? No and I never said they did or even implied so; the point was to objectively lay it out and ask if the relationship itself is any different (as a concept). This is why correlations to drinking fountains are completely ridiculous. In the end, the result of being black (as opposed to being white) was the same. In the end, the result of having a homosexual relationship (as opposed to a heterosexual one) is a 100% inability to bear children (in the confines of each respective relationship).

    In order to understand this properly one has to distinguish between the relationship as a concept and not individual relationships.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Umm, no. I raised the ability to have children in regards to the type of relationship and not individual relationships. I did so quite a number of posts ago, so it isn’t anything new.


    Not really, you just want it to be. These nonsensical correlations to drinking fountains are absurd. Even more absurd is dismissing the notion the ability to bear children is import when the ultimate question is: Are same-sex relationships the same as heterosexual relationships? The answer is patently no. Why? One relationship, unless impeded by an anomaly, can produce offspring. The other, no matter what one does, it (the relationship) cannot ever produce children.

    Do they have to produce children? No and I never said they did or even implied so; the point was to objectively lay it out and ask if the relationship itself is any different (as a concept). This is why correlations to drinking fountains are completely ridiculous. In the end, the result of being black (as opposed to being white) was the same. In the end, the result of having a homosexual relationship (as opposed to a heterosexual one) is a 100% inability to bear children (in the confines of each respective relationship).

    In order to understand this properly one has to distinguish between the relationship as a concept and not individual relationships.
    The question that seems to be causing this disagreement boils down to: is marriage meant to recognize a commitment between two people, or to recognize a couples commitment to start a family?

    The way you present your argument above states that heterosexual relationships are fundamentally different than homosexual relationships, simply because children can be produced by heterosexual couples. I'm sure that others would argue that the relationship between the two people isn't different, because the emotions and commitment is no different.

    Your basic premise, unless I'm misreading, is that the purpose of a marriage is to produce children - others could argue that the purpose is to legally recognize someone that you intend to spend your life with, and to share property, secure next of kin and hospital visitation, etc.

    You further extend the argument that, because the purpose of a marriage is to have children, then the comparison of a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual civil union is an apples / oranges comparison, and thus not analogous to "separate but equal" arguments with regards to race. If you come from the position that marriage is about sharing a life together, then it very much is an apples / apples comparison, and thus the "separate but equal" argument is certainly not ridiculous.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Yes and only in recent history has [marriage] waned from childbirth (to further bloodlines, etc)..
    Excuse me but it is only in "recent history" that marriage was between one man and one woman, and for that matter only in recent history that it even involved consent of both parties.

    Furthermore in the modern day legitimacy, and financial issues such as support is now established by courts and inheritance is established by wills (you don't have to leave a nickel to children from a marriage and can leave anything you wish to children outside of marriage (or your dog). and since a greater and greater number of children are not born into marriages, or are born into marriages that end while still minors.

    In the sweep of human history, or even in the much shorter civilized period, marriage as it is now known is perhaps one of the most recent and short lived types of human relationships.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...6&postcount=54

    If you aren't going to pay attention to the conversation, at least have the courtesy to refrain from posting. I mean, I already answered that question less than 10 posts ago.
    I read that... but then you post something totally different later. Seems you are the one that can't seem to keep up with what is posted.

    Seems you change your mind a lot... that is okay.

    edit: Oh, I see, others are also noticing you are changing what you state... oh well...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    The question that seems to be causing this disagreement boils down to: is marriage meant to recognize a commitment between two people, or to recognize a couples commitment to start a family?
    It could, but because I’m so wishy-washy, I already covered that in ohhhh, post number 48, where I said the following:

    “As I look at it, the affirmation of two people joining in a publicly recognized and legal status of a union serves two major functions: provide for society and provide for the individual. For the individual, we find such things as love, sexual desires, wills, life decisions (medical and such), etc. For society we find items such as family, having children and raising children (and yes, I acknowledge overlap).”

    As such, I patently reject the either-or assumption, to which my answer would be that it does both. Why did I say both? Because a marriage provides for both the individual and society—to which our laws are more concerned with the societal aspect.

    The way you present your argument above states that heterosexual relationships are fundamentally different than homosexual relationships, simply because children can be produced by heterosexual couples. I'm sure that others would argue that the relationship between the two people isn't different, because the emotions and commitment is no different.
    And they’d be wrong, primarily as emotions and commitment aren’t fundamental, but instead, choices. Inherent qualities are much better from which to judge from than are the more arbitrary human elements such as “emotion” and “commitment”.

    Your basic premise, unless I'm misreading, is that the purpose of a marriage is to produce children - others could argue that the purpose is to legally recognize someone that you intend to spend your life with, and to share property, secure next of kin and hospital visitation, etc.
    All correct, except for one word: purpose. I would say instead, result (though wouldn’t quibble too much if someone pressed the issue). And again, I reject the either-or assumption as I’ve previously stated.

    You further extend the argument that, because the purpose of a marriage is to have children, then the comparison of a heterosexual marriage to a homosexual civil union is an apples / oranges comparison, and thus not analogous to "separate but equal" arguments with regards to race. If you come from the position that marriage is about sharing a life together, then it very much is an apples / apples comparison, and thus the "separate but equal" argument is certainly not ridiculous.
    Since I’ve already mentioned it twice now, I won’t bother repeating myself. I do have one question: When you see the purpose (result) of marriage to be both to which argument does it accurately reflect? “Separate but equal,” or “different but equal?”

    Quote Originally Posted by aero
    Excuse me but it is only in "recent history" that marriage was between one man and one woman, and for that matter only in recent history that it even involved consent of both parties.
    Correct you are, yet even those marriages would qualify for the term “marriage” as I have already outlined.

    Quote Originally Posted by theog
    I read that... but then you post something totally different later.
    Actually no, I don’t; however, you are more than welcome to show the distinct posts, citing my actual words that conflict.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  11. #71  
    Since I’ve already mentioned it twice now, I won’t bother repeating myself. I do have one question: When you see the purpose (result) of marriage to be both to which argument does it accurately reflect? “Separate but equal,” or “different but equal?”
    Well, I've already taken the stance that I believe that they mean the same thing. So I'll follow with two questions:

    - Is it appropriate for the heterosexual society to determine that "marriage" is equal to "civil union" for homosexuals, or doesn't it have to be equal in the eyes of the people that are impacted by the proposed situation?

    - What if it I grant you that the functions of the two types of union are fundamentally different, for the reasons that you state. Would it be okay with you if only the homosexual unions be termed "marriage", while the heterosexuals can get "civil unions"? I'm assuming that, if they're equal and you're simply trying to differentiate the functions of each, this would be okay.

    “As I look at it, the affirmation of two people joining in a publicly recognized and legal status of a union serves two major functions: provide for society and provide for the individual. For the individual, we find such things as love, sexual desires, wills, life decisions (medical and such), etc. For society we find items such as family, having children and raising children (and yes, I acknowledge overlap).”
    Given gay couples options for having and raising children (such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption, foster parenting), doesn't the function of gay marriage allow for all of the above?

    According to the 2000 census, 30% of same sex couples are raising children. Compare this to 46% of married couples, and 43% of unmarried couples living together. What percentage of gay couples have to decide to have children for you to agree that the societal function (having and raising children) is just as much a function of gay marriage as straight marriage? And if the function is the same, then it would seem that we're at a "separate but equal" point, in that both institutions serve the same function but aren't considered on a level playing field.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/08/2008 at 10:23 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, I've already taken the stance that I believe that they mean the same thing.
    Fair enough and I fully recognize your view.

    - Is it appropriate for the heterosexual society to determine that "marriage" is equal to "civil union" for homosexuals, or doesn't it have to be equal in the eyes of the people that are impacted by the proposed situation?
    Wow, just wow . . . a heterosexual society? I mean, wow I never even went there (and never would have). We are a society of people where the predominant orientation is heterosexual.

    I mean if predominate is all that is needed to label as such then I guess we can say we are a Christian society since our society is upwards 70% Christian (at least how they identify).

    - What if it I grant you that the functions of the two types of union are fundamentally different, for the reasons that you state. Would it be okay with you if only the homosexual unions be termed "marriage", while the heterosexuals can get "civil unions"? I'm assuming that, if they're equal and you're simply trying to differentiate the functions of each, this would be okay.
    This question disappoints me as it insults my intelligence. Honestly, yes it would work just the same that way as I have made no argument that marriage linguistically carries any specific attributes and as such the two terms may be swapped.

    I'm insulted that you apparently didn't think I was smart enough just to simply say yes and bypass any legitimate criticism for doing so.



    Given gay couples options for having and raising children (such as artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption, foster parenting), doesn't the function of gay marriage allow for all of the above?
    [sighs] I already covered this too (also post 48):


    Same-sex couples . . .
    - can have families—which I don’t dispute
    - can successfully raise children—which I don’t dispute (though not optimal IMO)


    But again, I was working with what is inherent to both types of relationships. What they lack is the ability--within the sole confines of their relationship--to produce offspring.


    Since we are asking questions, let me ask:

    If homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships, why is it that in any homosexual relationship inherently only one parent can ever be the biological parent of a child whereas in heterosexuals relationships both parents can inherently be the biological parents?

    How does that comport with being completely equal? Or better yet, how is that not different?
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Fair enough and I fully recognize your view.



    Wow, just wow . . . a heterosexual society? I mean, wow I never even went there (and never would have). We are a society of people where the predominant orientation is heterosexual.
    Perhaps my wording wasn't very clear - my point is that most of the rules are written by heterosexuals. If you're making the argument that civil unions are equal to marriage, shouldn't the people impacted feel the same way? I'd wager that most gay people would indicate that they don't see it as equal, but rather as a consolation prize.


    This question disappoints me as it insults my intelligence. Honestly, yes it would work just the same that way as I have made no argument that marriage linguistically carries any specific attributes and as such the two terms may be swapped.

    I'm insulted that you apparently didn't think I was smart enough just to simply say yes and bypass any legitimate criticism for doing so.
    Not trying to insult anyone: I was trying to understand if your issue is with the term "marriage", or you simply want to ensure that gay unions have a different term than straight ones.

    [sighs] I already covered this too (also post 48):


    Same-sex couples . . .
    - can have families—which I don’t dispute
    - can successfully raise children—which I don’t dispute (though not optimal IMO)


    But again, I was working with what is inherent to both types of relationships. What they lack is the ability--within the sole confines of their relationship--to produce offspring.
    Well, given the percentage of gay couples raising children, I'd argue that the ability to parent is more important than the source of the genetic material. Add to that the number of children who are being raised outside of marriage, I'd add that society has already determined that the link between marriage and procreation isn't that tightly coupled. Straight people can have children without marriage, can be married without having children, and can use a surrogate / in vitro / adoption.

    Since we are asking questions, let me ask:

    If homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships, why is it that in any homosexual relationship inherently only one parent can ever be the biological parent of a child whereas in heterosexuals relationships both parents can inherently be the biological parents?

    How does that comport with being completely equal? Or better yet, how is that not different?
    Are adoptive parents less able to fulfill the functions of a married couple (including raising children) because the children aren't biologically theirs? Is my step-mother less of a parent, and thus less able to fulfill the function of her marriage (as you define the function of marriage) because only my father was the biological parent? Are couples who use surrogates or in vitro fertilization not able to have the same function of their marriage if both parents aren't the biological ones?

    I'm not arguing that the procreative ability of gay couples is identical to straight ones. I'm stating that the function of marriage, as you have defined it, applies to gays as well as straights. And if you use the ability of the two parties to procreate together as the part of the definition of marriage, then you can't only apply that rule to gay people.

    Thus it is, IMO only perhaps, an exact analogue to the water fountain argument. However, since your responses indicate that you're getting a bit...upset, I'll definitely make this the end of my participation in this discussion. We'll not convince each other, and I don't want you to yet again feel that I insulted you.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/08/2008 at 11:47 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'd wager that most gay people would indicate that they don't see it as equal, but rather as a consolation prize.
    And unfortunately they'd be wrong. After the Fair Tax and the implimentation of individual liberties (hospital visitation, etc) I fail to see how can be viewed as a consolation prize. They've got the exact same privileges and protections as any heterosexual couple. The only difference would be the nomenclature which is comparable to saying male and female to distinguish between the sexes.

    Not trying to insult anyone: I was trying to understand if your issue is with the term "marriage", or you simply want to ensure that gay unions have a different term than straight ones.
    I should have included a smiley or something, I was only trying to razz you a bit.

    You made an argument that marriage fulfills a function for both the people and the society - I made the point that a gay union fills the same function.
    Minus the inherent ability to reproduce.

    Are adoptive parents less able to fulfill the functions of a married couple (including raising children) because the children aren't biologically theirs?
    Less able? No. But there is substantial evidence that within heterosexual couples, having one non-biological parent increases the risk of abuse significantly.

    5x higher among stepfathers as opposed to biological ones

    Of the 26% of males who abuse children sexually, 30% are stepfathers, 24% are adoptive and 20% are boyfriends, while 7% come from biological fathers

    Now the question is, since in a homosexual couple only one parent can be biological and presuming equality as everyone claims, then it stands to reason that similar statistics can be expected--although more likely among male couples as opposed to female couples. Thus giving a higher than normal rate of abuse amongst male couples and a lower than normal rate with female couples.

    NOTE: This is not an attempt to say that gay men are abusers, this is solely looking at this from the perspective of being male and biological parents and not orientation.

    And I'm not upset, I just don't like repeating myself.

    But hey, you are right . . . we aren't going to really change the other's mind (which I always presume up front) . . . at best we can both expect to have food for thought.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Is my step-mother less of a parent, and thus less able to fulfill the function of her marriage (as you define the function of marriage) because only my father was the biological parent?
    Just to play l'avocat diable, does calling her your step-mother make her de facto lesser, or is it simply an acknowledgment that her role is somewhat different?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Just to play l'avocat diable, does calling her your step-mother make her de facto lesser, or is it simply an acknowledgment that her role is somewhat different?
    Well, it was considerably different: she was my actual parent, raising my since I was three. And, unlike my biological mother, she wasn't abusive. And, other than to clarify which one is which, I NEVER refer to her as my stepmother. She's my mom, pure and simple.

    But hey, you are right . . . we aren't going to really change the other's mind (which I always presume up front) . . . at best we can both expect to have food for thought.
    I'll give it one last try. The basis for our disagreement is that, unless I'm mistaken, your stance is that the inherent inability to have children makes the relationship different between gay and straight unions. I will grant you that, but think that if you apply the rule that inherent inability to have children should apply to any unions that can't have children.

    Let me propose this: heterosexual couples can be married, while gay people can have civil unions. However, if a heterosexual couple do not produce their own children within five years, their relationship reverts to a civil union. In that way, your contention that inability to have children will disqualify anyone (regardless of orientation) from being married. Your criteria of procreation becomes the deciding factor, rather than orientation.

    Could you support that? Or do gay people, because of their orientation alone, need to have a different type of union?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Your criteria of procreation becomes the deciding factor, rather than orientation.
    And this is your problem, orientation was never the deciding factor. What was the deciding factor was the sex of the couple. If they were of opposite sex, then they qualify for "marriage." If they were of the same sex, then they qualify for "civil union."

    Orientation deals with attraction, desire and so forth--things that I classified as pertaining to an individual level--which I pointed out was of little concern to society or the government.

    This is the problem that I run into ALL the time . . . people confuse sex with orientation. If two brothers--who remained mutually unattracted in any way with each other--wished to come together in a civil union, they could. While their relationship would differ from a real homosexual couple on an individual level, it would remain exactly the same on a societal level. They could raise children, call the group a family and (like homosexual couples) would ALWAYS be unable to produce children.

    Again, the goal here is to look at the inherent potential of each type of relationship (maybe relationship is a bad word, but for now) and evaluate what it potentially can offer.

    The anomalies you speak of are irrelevant as if we categorized them like we do with everything else, we would need even more terminology so as to describe something even more unique.

    A heterosexual couple that biologically cannot produce is still not the same as a homosexual couple. The homosexual couple was never supposed to be able to produce whereas the heterosexual couple was and therefore exists as an abberation.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  18. #78  
    I'm going to chime in here, though I'm worried I will regret it.

    As far as I can tell from reading these posts, I haven't seen anyone who is affected by the civil union/marriage debate actually post. Deep apologies if I am wrong. So I decided to post and explain this from my point of view as a lesbian in America.

    All of these debates on the purpose of marriage and such aren't taking into account that all of the constitutional amendments in the states where they've passed have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There are no clauses that it is to further propagate the species or any other procreation strings attached. So the procreation theory is bull**** to me. Especially since elderly people can marry without having to justify their unions.

    So civil unions are created. The problem is that there is no uniform acceptance of civil unions even within the state. There have been a few high profile cases even here in NJ where a hospital refused to acknowledge a civil union, and a case where a police station did not want to extend survivor's benefits to the surviving partner of a lesbian police officer.

    I can't really explain it, but ever since Tuesday I've been incredibly angry. It's a failure of our society that we can't just be happy when two people fall in love. We did the same thing with interracial marriages as well. And it makes me even angrier, and sick to my stomach, that we have a country and a culture that allows the majority to dictate the rights of the minority. No one can give me a good reason why same-sex marriage would harm America that is not steeped deep in religion, specifically a religion that I don't even believe in (I'm jewish). So either we ban churches from mobilizing to stop gay marriage, or we all stop eating pork. If I have to follow your rules, you have to follow mine.

    There is absolutely nothing negative for society to legalize gay marriage. Massachusetts didn't fall off the map after they did. In fact, the Red Sox won the World Series the following year. If anything, it can incrementally add to the economy; it opens a wider group to potentially holding ceremonies, giving more business to florists, catering halls, etc. In MA many couples who had held commitment ceremonies years earlier held marriages once it became legal as well.

    And it is not up to anyone who does not know me, my girlfriend or my life to determine if we would make good parents someday. It's a civil rights issue, and it should never be left to the whims of a bigoted majority to determine if I am an equal citizen in this country.
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    A heterosexual couple that biologically cannot produce is still not the same as a homosexual couple. The homosexual couple was never supposed to be able to produce whereas the heterosexual couple was and therefore exists as an abberation.
    And there it is....the real basis for your argument. It isn't about the role of marriage or the ability to produce children, as those aren't limited to gay couples. It comes down to your feeling that gay couples are an abberation. Thanks for clearing that up.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    And there it is....the real basis for your argument. It isn't about the role of marriage or the ability to produce children, as those aren't limited to gay couples. It comes down to your feeling that gay couples are an abberation. Thanks for clearing that up.
    Either you willfully chose to do a poor job of reading or you intentionally twisted my words to mean something they are not--you take your pick.


    A heterosexual couple that biologically cannot produce is still not the same as a homosexual couple. The homosexual couple was never supposed to be able to produce whereas the heterosexual couple was and therefore exists as an abberation.
    These two statements speak to a heterosexual couple--particularly the last, which you misquoted something terrible. I'll requote with brackets to clear up the problem here:

    The heterosexual couple was [supposed to procreate] and therefore [because they can't] exists as an abberation.


    I'm done with you, I will not tolerate manipulations of my words.

    Good day.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM

Posting Permissions