Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 93
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Toolkit already answered this:

    That's the good...

    Go back a 150 years (or 50 years depending on how ya look at it).. "what's the good of letting blacks vote"

    Replace "gay marriage" with "african american voting" and see how stupid this sounds..

    Along the lines of what Thomas said, the only people who could argue against that back then were the bigots, like the only people who argue against gay marriage now are the homophobes?
    I don't know that the ethnicity of the citizenry is on par with the sexual behavior of the citizenry.

    That is not to say that the argument against gay marriage is therefore valid. I'm merely pointing out the incongruence of that particular argument*

    That notwithstanding, your comparison raises what I find to be the underlying question: is there a fundamental difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality?

    *The right to vote is granted to all citizens. The 14th amendment defined/clarified what it meant to be a citizen for voting purposes. The 15th amendment formally outlawed the practice of denying that right based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The 19th outlawed the denial of that right based on "sex."

    In actuality, 15 and 19 are redundant. The 14th had already defined citizenship based on birth or naturalization, and residency. But the legislatures of the times felt it necessary to articulate that race, color, servitude, and sex were not differentiators as it relates to citizenship.
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You are trying to evade the answer to my question. I am sure you agree that the basis of our societies is "all men/women are equal". So if you want to deviate from that, you need to have good reasons. The burden of proof is on YOU, not on those who want to stick to equal rights also for homosexual people. They are men/women, too, no? So they have equal rights, too, or not?

    It certainly does no harm to you or anybody else if also the union of two homosexual human beings is protected by the law. Or does it? Does it harm you or anybody else in any way if they have similar rights like you and your wife, e.g. regarding inheritance? If yes, in what way?
    That's just it. I don't see the legal assumptions regarding inheritance as a right.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Your denial is based on prejudice, probably based on your religious beliefs. I have little doubt that you think the bible says homosexuality is bad. Does it or does it not? Please quote. (***-> I'd really like to know whether you think the bible says homosexuality is bad!***)

    However, keep in mind that not so long ago, your white compatriots also decuded from the bible that it is ok to enslave Africans. After all, it is written in the Genesis 7 (about, could be 8 or so) that Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan, and said that Canaan's descendants shall be enslaved by the descendants of his other sons. As you certainly know, Ham means "hot" in Hebrew, from that it was deduced that Hams descendants became the African race (the others being Jewish and Caucasian). From that follows it is Gods will that Africans are enslaved.

    You don't follow that logic? Neither do I, but guess what: I don't follow yours regarding homosexuals... You are as wrong about that as the others were about enslaving black people.
    I stated my bias early on. And, I equally dismissed them as not valid basis for legislation.
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Well put - done. Lock the thread
    LOL
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I know PLENTY of lesbian couples that have procreated AND there's donor egg/surrogate mother AND adoption of all those unwanted babies made by irresponsible hetero's.
    I mistakenly closed my browser while I was typing an earlier response. When I re-typed the entry on commonality I forgot to raise this question:

    Does our technological progress eliminate the significance, if there s any, of the distinction of inherent procreation?
  5. #25  
    President George Bush said that he will try to bring freedom to the world, Maybe we should start here with the gay and lesbian folk.
    It would really stink if I couldn't make a life and death decision in the hospital for my wife when she needed me the most.
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    That's just it. I don't see the legal assumptions regarding inheritance as a right.
    I thought I'd elaborate on this with a less volatile subject: mortgage assistance.

    In my considerations of purchasing a house, I have become aware of various federal- and state-funded programs designed to provide financial assistance to people wanting to purchase a house. These program have specific eligibility criteria. Examples of criteria include residency, annuallilzed compensation levels, military status, number of family members/dependents.

    No citizen has a right to this type of assistance. The availability of assistance is a policy. Ideally, the policy should have been established because of a recognized benefit to the nation/state of home ownership of the eligible class of citizens.
  7. #27  
    If you're trying to argue there are no laws which provide benefits to married folk, you'll lose.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Why do you want to deny homsexuals the right to marry? What disadvantage does your nation suffer from if there is a proper legal basis for the union of two men or two women if they love each other? Based on what do you want to deny them the rights heterosexuals have?

    Those are the questions you have to answer, because basically, people have the same rights (at least where I live), if you want to change that, you need very good reasons.
    Well clulup if we did follow, let's say Swedens lead, and allow same-sex unions what benefits would society entail?
    The only study that I've seen
    The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Sweden indicates that the rate of failure (divorce) for same sex marriages is "considerably higher" for same-sex couples (hetrosexual marriages = 1, male partners = 1.5, female partners = 2.67). If parity is wanted because of a desired "proper legal basis for the union of two men or two women" then a civil union would accomplish that fact. Changing the definition of a word, and it's legal ramifications, for a proportionately small segment of the population who have not successfully proven that they are being injured by their lack of said privilege is a waste of time and energy. The increase in court costs, for those divorces alone, shouldered by the public will be enormous.
    Since, in the same time frame as the Sweden study, Sweden as a whole has seen a dramatic lowering of marriages (replaced by co-inhabiting) and a dramatic rise in children being born out of wedlock, I ask you again, what benefit does this privilege give to society as a whole?
    That's the question you have to answer, since it seems that same-sex unions don't seem to provide any benefits to anyone except short term monetary ones dealing with health benefits, et al. The inclusion of the word "marriage" into the partnership does nothing positive, it only further dilutes the solidity of the marriage vow.
    The idea that society must change for the desires of a small minority, is conterproductive and anti-democratic.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Again, I don't get this "what benefits would society entail?" People are allowed to smoke cigarettes, which is NOT against the law. What BENEFITS would society entail from smokers?

    Also related:
    What benefit would society derive from someone being allowed to drive drunk either? Since our society is currently restricting the ability of people to smoke (including insurance companies being able to charge more for policies held by smokers) your question doesn't make sense when analyzed. Smoking is against the law in certain places here in the US.

    Just as the knee-jerk reaction to opposition to same-sex marriage as the result of one being "homophobic or a religious bigot" is simplistic and an easy way to dismiss anothers right to hold a differing opinion. I could as well call someone names to diminish them. Flaming is the easy way out. Means you don't have to actually think. (last paragraph not a reply to Chick-Dance obviously)
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #30  
    Just as the knee-jerk reaction to opposition to same-sex marriage as the result of one being "homophobic or a religious bigot" is simplistic and an easy way to dismiss anothers right to hold a differing opinion. I could as well call someone names to diminish them. Flaming is the easy way out. Means you don't have to actually think. (last paragraph not a reply to Chick-Dance obviously)
    Plenty of people use their religion to discriminate against this group.

    The simple question is how does one justify denying legal rights and benefits to adult citizens?
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Forgive me for asking: What exactly is “… the common good of the nation”? Common good for whom (who is the beneficiary)? By whom (who is making those decisions)? What is a nation? And, most importantly: What is good?!
    The "common good" is a term I coined for the purposes of this discussion. I mean it to refer to the outcome that reults when a legislative privilege is given.

    Hence I used the non-volatile subject of mortgage assistance as an example. In such cases, the nation benefits from the larger tax base (for those subject to property-based taxes) for schools and public services. Further, tax breaks (such as interest deduction) encourages tax payment (or may reduce tax evasion).

    I have offered that laws should be derived from creating such "common good" notwithstanding (and certainly not for the purposes of) the incidental, incremental benefit to some segment of the citizenry. Meaning, the first time home buyer receives the immediate financial benefit, but the nation at large ultimately benefits (in this example) from the increase in the number of home owners.
  12.    #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Anyone (anyone!) who wants to smoke at his/her own home can. That’s my point. And I still don’t understand how can anyone decide what is:
    a. Common good for an entire society
    b. What benefits would society entail
    That requires a philosophical discussion of what is "good" or "beneficial"

    But, on a similar note, the question addresses the wonder of the democratic experiment, namely that the states are made up of individuals. The union is made up of states. The laws by which the united states, and their citizens, are governed results in a mish-mash of the morals/mores of the individuals.

    What is considered "good" today may be seen as ludicrous tomorrow. Hence, we have debates such as this one, with citizens hoping to influence each other...to ultimately influence that mish-mash.
  13.    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    shopharim, I suppose I should just plainly ask why is it that things need to be morally accepted only when they are assumed to be “common good for an entire society”? Or even “good”?
    Allow me to separate accepted, from legislated.

    For all intents and purposes, there are an untold number of things we can do, especially given all the intents and purposes. Legislatively, though, there are limited resources. So, we must decide what intents and purposes to pursue. I think good for the society makes the most sense (though identifying that "good" is often difficult) as a basis for such decisions.


    As to acceptance and the subject matter at hand, homosexuality has been accepted legally. While there my be laws on books that prohibit behaviours, they are not enforced. And, in my estimation, those who object can only do so on a moral basis rather than a legal basis. Even us Bible thumpers have to admit that God ultimately leaves the choice of lifestyle/behavior to us (Deuteronomy 30:19 for my fellow Bible thumpers who may be aghast at that statement), making us aware of the consequences in the process.

    If the perported creator gives you the right to choose a behavior (and its consequences, whatever they may be), who am I to take it away? But, not restricting your right to do it (acceptance), does not mean I should incentivize it (i.e. legislation).
    Last edited by shopharim; 02/10/2005 at 02:15 PM.
  14. #34  
    As to acceptance and the subject matter at hand, homosexuality has been accepted legally. While there my be laws on books that prohibit behaviours, they are not enforced. And, in my estimation, those who object can only do so on a moral basis rather than a legal basis. Even us Bible thumpers have to admit that God ultimately leaves the choice of lifestyle/behavior to us (Deuteronomy 30:19 for my fellow Bible thumpers who may be aghast at that statement), making us aware of the consequences in the process.
    How does this address equal treatment under the law?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Plenty of people use their religion to discriminate against this group.
    As plenty of people use their views of religion to discriminate against people of faith. Tolerance is a two way street.
    Marriage is not a legal right for all. Our concept of marriage derives from the Judeo-Christian concept of one man/one woman per couple. By carefully parsing the Bible and historical documents I suppose one could come up with a specious arguement to support any kind of union as being ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The simple question is how does one justify denying legal rights and benefits to adult citizens?
    My question remains. Why do you think it's ok to change the definition of marriage to suit such a small minority? It may make things convenient for same-sex couples in the short run, but it's lasting impact on society as whole would appear to be detrimental. legal rights and benefits are continually being denied to adult citizens depending on how those rights and benefits would impact the rest of society. That's the result of being in a representative republic.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Anyone (anyone!) who wants to smoke at his/her own home can. That’s my point. And I still don’t understand how can anyone decide what is:
    a. Common good for an entire society
    b. What benefits would society entail
    Your correct, they can. But society still restricts the way you smoke among other people. That's a good example of rights of the individual vs. rights of the majority.
    So you're able to be "married" to anything or anyone in the privacy of your own home. Society just legislates your rights to be "married" in the larger arena.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  17.    #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    How does this address equal treatment under the law?
    It doesn't. It addresses chick-dance's question.

    However, since you raised the subject, do affirmative action laws represent "equal treatment under the law?"
  18. #38  
    As plenty of people use their views of religion to discriminate against people of faith. Tolerance is a two way street.
    Marriage is not a legal right for all. Our concept of marriage derives from the Judeo-Christian concept of one man/one woman per couple. By carefully parsing the Bible and historical documents I suppose one could come up with a specious arguement to support any kind of union as being ok.
    Au contraire mon frere! (yea I know I butchered that spelling). There are legal rights and benefits afforded legally married loved ones. You require a legal document and legal ceremony to obtain those rights. You cannot refure the same to any two adults willing to make that legal binding based on same sex. The courts will bear this out.


    My question remains. Why do you think it's ok to change the definition of marriage to suit such a small minority? It may make things convenient for same-sex couples in the short run, but it's lasting impact on society as whole would appear to be detrimental. legal rights and benefits are continually being denied to adult citizens depending on how those rights and benefits would impact the rest of society. That's the result of being in a representative republic.
    It's not to suit a minority, it's to INCLUDE the minority with the rest of the married folk. Uniting, not dividing. I think the more important question is why someone would be opposed to it, logically speaking.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    It doesn't. It addresses chick-dance's question.

    However, since you raised the subject, do affirmative action laws represent "equal treatment under the law?"
    I don't believe anyone here is asking for a quota of married hoosexuals.

    Now, if by "affirmative action" you're referring to civil rights, yes, that does relate to equal protection under the law.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup

    Your denial is based on prejudice, probably based on your religious beliefs. I have little doubt that you think the bible says homosexuality is bad. Does it or does it not? Please quote. (***-> I'd really like to know whether you think the bible says homosexuality is bad!***)
    Make up your own mind what it says.
    Taken from the New American Standard Bible Key Word Study Bible (translated from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek).

    Leviticus 20:13
    "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have commited a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

    FYI Leviticus contains material which delineates civil, sanitary, ceremonial, moral, and religious laws from God.
    These are the laws that Jesus himself followed. While Jesus came and delivered man from the consequences of these laws (ability to repent after sinning was a new concept), He didn't absolve people who didn't repent (meaning they kept sinning). He spent alot of time with people that society had given up on because he felt they were just as valuable as the next man/woman. He didn't however say "Go and sin some more", He said "Go and sin no more".

    Before anyone gets too excited remember that homosexuality was just one of the many sins listed in Leviticus. Pride, arrogance, lust, adultery, disobediance, hate, etc. It's a big enough list that we all fall short of being sin-free.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions