Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 93
  1.    #1  
    From the Thanks ALOT, Bush Supporters thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I'll only make one response to this in this thread. If you want to continue this topic, please start a new thread for it.

    This is very simple. There are very specific legal rights allowed married couples. To get married, states require the application of a marriage license signed by some kind of officiant approved by the state. You CAN NOT under the law have laws which benefit a group of people and deny one membership of your citizenry access to that should they be willing to make the commitment.

    Now as to how religions want to define "marriage". That's their business. Gov't can't exclude. Also, before you post your reply. Please substitute the concept of interracial marriage for gay marriage when you proof read to make sure it doesn't sound like a 1950's editorial.
    Laws should incentivize behavior that is beneficial for the common good, not necessarily for particular segments of the citizenry. That a particular segment expriences added benefit from a given law is a bi-product of the common benefit.

    The current push for "gay marriage" is focused on the benefit of a segment of citizens rather than the benefit of the union. Or, so it seems to me. So, I ask of this august body:

    What benefits does the nation gain from establishing legal status to male-male or female-female relationships?
  2. #2  
    Quite simple it gives all people the same rights, if those rights are pointless then why not get rid of them for straight sex couples too?
    A marriage also provides a form of stability in a relationship. Stable relationships are a good thing for society, regardless of the sexual preference of the people involved.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. #3  
    Well put - done. Lock the thread
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Quite simple it gives all people the same rights, if those rights are pointless then why not get rid of them for straight sex couples too?
    Not sure that "all people" having "the same rights" is of particular benefit to the nation. In fact, we have already established that we as a nation will not support the "right" of people under the age of 21 (18) to purchase alcoholic beverages. We do support the "right" of people under the age of 18 to vote.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    A marriage also provides a form of stability in a relationship. Stable relationships are a good thing for society, regardless of the sexual preference of the people involved.
    [QUOTE=ToolkiT]
    I think your second point has more strength (even though the divorce rate brings into question the stabilizing power of marriage any more). However, I would ask, what inherent value "stability" of relationships brings to the nation?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    Well put -
    Thanks..

    Quote Originally Posted by Joebar
    done. Lock the thread
    No need to do that, and if people keep dicussing this on in a civil way there will be no need..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Not sure that "all people" having "the same rights" is of particular benefit to the nation. In fact, we have already established that we as a nation will not support the "right" of people under the age of 21 (18) to purchase alcoholic beverages. We do support the "right" of people under the age of 18 to vote.
    first of all I think the US alcohol laws are very silly, one can drive a car, vote, buy a gun etc. but not buy a beer? strange at least..
    but besides that, like daThomas said, how would you feel if if we replaced gay with black? or trumpet players for that matter? would you feel the same way then?

    [QUOTE=shopharim]
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I think your second point has more strength (even though the divorce rate brings into question the stabilizing power of marriage any more). However, I would ask, what inherent value "stability" of relationships brings to the nation?
    it does by preventing the spreading of STDs, giving kids a more stable environment to grow up in etc etc. many advantages..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Quite simple it gives all people the same rights, if those rights are pointless then why not get rid of them for straight sex couples too?
    What exactly are the "benefits" of being married? Until last year it actually cost more to file jointly.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    A marriage also provides a form of stability in a relationship. Stable relationships are a good thing for society, regardless of the sexual preference of the people involved.
    Interesting point, but your point is actually not provable without more data. Why would a status change how two people respond to each other? Proponents of this measure keep saying things along this line, with no proof. I'd like to see more data (from both sides) instead of anectdotal rhetoric.

    I actually think that civil unions that allow for the same "benefits" are fine. I think calling them "marriages" is shortsighted. Changing language to suit a very small segment of the population is misguided at best. Also to compare being gay to a persons color is silly. One is born a race (or combination of races), the verdict is still out on whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or not (as is trumpet playing). If you're going to go that route, why not insert pedophile or NAMBLA member in the same spot? After all it may be illegal in Western societies to have sexual relations with minors, it's legal in other parts of the world. Why do we discriminate against them?

    To prevent any flamethrowing, I'd like to point out to people who don't know me that I'm not "against" homosexuals. I thought highly enough of a friend, that happened to be gay, that I named my son, Samuel, after him (Leon Samuel Fried). As artists, my wife and I, came into contact with an amazing cross section of people, many who had "alternative" lifestyles. Nothing I experienced in all that time even suggested that granting "marriage" status to same sex couples would provide any real, long-term benefits to the emotional side of their relationship. Death benefits, legal rights, are different and I think that provision should be made so that two consenting adults should be allowed to formally join in a civil union.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    it does by preventing the spreading of STDs, giving kids a more stable environment to grow up in etc etc. many advantages..
    Red herrings. Assuming that marriage status would prevent those things, which you have no proof that they would. The fact remains that it still is more common for same-sex couples to "sleep" around outside their current relationships than comparable man/woman couples. Why would being married change that? The mystique of "dangerous sex" is still very high in gay culture. The couples that don't respond to that, won't change if they're married. Conversely, being "married" won't prevent someone from falling back into that behavior. Look at the amount of married men that still find time to go to prostitutes.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    What exactly are the "benefits" of being married? Until last year it actually cost more to file jointly. .
    Don't know the details (I'm not affected by it personally), but what I understand from it, it has to do with pensions, (healthcare) insurance etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Interesting point, but your point is actually not provable without more data. Why would a status change how two people respond to each other? Proponents of this measure keep saying things along this line, with no proof. I'd like to see more data (from both sides) instead of anectdotal rhetoric.
    unfortunately I am not a political scientist and am just a layman with an educated gues..

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    I actually think that civil unions that allow for the same "benefits" are fine. I think calling them "marriages" is shortsighted.
    That is fine with me, the thing that bothers me most is that people don't get the benefits because of their sexuality..

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Changing language to suit a very small segment of the population is misguided at best. Also to compare being gay to a persons color is silly.
    One is born a race (or combination of races), the verdict is still out on whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or not (as is trumpet playing).
    Verdict is still out, but from what I understand from it there is a lot of evidence pointing towards that one is born with it..

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    If you're going to go that route, why not insert pedophile or NAMBLA member in the same spot? After all it may be illegal in Western societies to have sexual relations with minors, it's legal in other parts of the world. Why do we discriminate against them?
    difference in pedopilia and beastiality (another thing used much in these discussions) is that there are no mutual concending adults i.e. the relation isnt balanced in power.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    first of all I think the US alcohol laws are very silly, one can drive a car, vote, buy a gun etc. but not buy a beer? strange at least..
    but besides that, like daThomas said, how would you feel if if we replaced gay with black? or trumpet players for that matter? would you feel the same way then?
    Glad you asked. But before I address that, I should state my position for the record:

    Like BobbyMike, I believe the definition of "marriage" should be reserved for male-female covenant. Unlike BobbyMike, I do not favor the establishment of civil unions. I have two levels of opposition. The first is purely my personal moral conviction and that view has no place in this discussion.

    My second level of opposition is the thought that fundamentally legislation should be based on the common good of the nation, not the perceived benefit of a particular subset of the citizenry. Which leads me to the question of ethnicity and musicality...

    While I would enjoy if there were particular government benefits available to trumpet players, I think it would be misuse of the public treasury to establish such benefits solely for the purpose of helping trumpet players. The legislation should have at its heart the benefit of the nation that trumpet players bring. And, if that benefit can be demonstrated, then so be it. And, as a trumpet player, I would take advantage of that benefit. However, saxophone players would not therefore be entitile to a similar benefit just because trumpet players had it. What ever benefit trumpet players bring would need to be demonstrated by saxophone players as well.

    Likewise for ethnicity (I did not use the term 'race' because I am not in competition with those who do no look like me). Why should the nation establish policies aimed solely at helping a particular ethnic group? Granted, the good-intention is to recognize and correct for inequities of history. However, the practice only engenders other expectations of entitlement. Negro/Black/African-Ameircan/... citizens (I chose that one because I am considered a member of that class) need not receive preferential treatment unless that treatment establishes a greater benefit to the nation. As such, the incidental and incremental benefit to the ethinic group is just that -- incidental and incremental.
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    it does by preventing the spreading of STDs, giving kids a more stable environment to grow up in etc etc. many advantages..
    It is the "etc etc" and "many advantages" that I was hoping we could get at.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    What benefits does the nation gain from establishing legal status to male-male or female-female relationships?
    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.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    My second level of opposition is the thought that fundamentally legislation should be based on the common good of the nation, not the perceived benefit of a particular subset of the citizenry. Which leads me to the question of ethnicity and musicality...

    While I would enjoy if there were particular government benefits available to trumpet players, I think it would be misuse of the public treasury to establish such benefits solely for the purpose of helping trumpet players. The legislation should have at its heart the benefit of the nation that trumpet players bring. And, if that benefit can be demonstrated, then so be it. And, as a trumpet player, I would take advantage of that benefit. However, saxophone players would not therefore be entitile to a similar benefit just because trumpet players had it. What ever benefit trumpet players bring would need to be demonstrated by saxophone players as well.

    Likewise for ethnicity (I did not use the term 'race' because I am not in competition with those who do no look like me). Why should the nation establish policies aimed solely at helping a particular ethnic group? Granted, the good-intention is to recognize and correct for inequities of history. However, the practice only engenders other expectations of entitlement. Negro/Black/African-Ameircan/... citizens (I chose that one because I am considered a member of that class) need not receive preferential treatment unless that treatment establishes a greater benefit to the nation. As such, the incidental and incremental benefit to the ethinic group is just that -- incidental and incremental.
    Maybe I'm not reading it right, but to me it seems you are contradicting yourself.
    At the moment heterosexuals are advantaged for being hetero and having a spouse.
    So if you are against dicrimination (either positive or negative) you should be for gay marriage...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  13.    #13  
    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?
    I don't find "What's the harm" as a good rationale for acting? The more meaningful question is "What's the good"?

    The number of things that can be done, practically speaking, is without limit.
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Maybe I'm not reading it right, but to me it seems you are contradicting yourself.
    At the moment heterosexuals are advantaged for being hetero and having a spouse.
    So if you are against dicrimination (either positive or negative) you should be for gay marriage...
    I don't recall saying I was against discrimination. I am saying that the purpose for the legislation should be of higher purpose than the desires of a segment of the population. The greater good should be the driving force. The extent to which a segment of the population benefits from that legislation is a bi-product.

    At the moment, the nation's laws demonstrate the benefit it sees to the common good in marriage relations (tax law not withstanding). Statistically, that benefit tends to continue to be borne out (academic performance, reduced probability of criminal behavior , reduced probability of substance use/abuse, better health).

    NOTE: not any of the demographic criteria listed are 100%. However, each tends to recognize a positive influence of marriage. And, cumulatively the benfit is improved multiplicatively rather than just summarily
    Last edited by shopharim; 02/10/2005 at 10:57 AM.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I don't recall saying I was against discrimination. I am saying that the purpose for the legislation should be of higher purpose than the desires of a segment of the population. The greater good should be the driving force. The extent to which a segment of the population benefits from that legislation is a bi-product.
    I based that on: "Why should the nation establish policies aimed solely at helping a particular ethnic group?"
    I agree, so why do we do that for heterosexuals?
    For the record, I'm partly playing devils advocate, since I am a hetero myself, but the point is still valid..

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    At the moment, the nation's laws demonstrate the benefit it sees to the common good in marriage relations (tax law not withstanding). Statistically, that benefit tends to continue to be borne out (academic performance, reduced probability of criminal behavior , reduced probability of substance use/abuse).
    The last time I checked the US constitution was based on equality not on productivity..
    What you are suggesting is to change the constitution..

    My argument is that banning gay mariages goes agaist the priciple of the constitution i.e. equality..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  16. #16  
    The sad thing is, it's a simple matter. The only arguement being from religious bigots and or homophobes.

    The worse part about the whole thing was Carl Rove using the issue to further divide middle america during the election. Fostering hate and intolerence is not good for our Nation.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I don't find "What's the harm" as a good rationale for acting? The more meaningful question is "What's the good"?
    Toolkit already answered this:

    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    Quite simple it gives all people the same rights, if those rights are pointless then why not get rid of them for straight sex couples too?
    A marriage also provides a form of stability in a relationship. Stable relationships are a good thing for society, regardless of the sexual preference of the people involved.
    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"

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The current push for "gay marriage" is focused on the benefit of a segment of citizens rather than the benefit of the union.
    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?
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT
    I based that on: "Why should the nation establish policies aimed solely at helping a particular ethnic group?"
    I agree, so why do we do that for heterosexuals?
    For the record, I'm partly playing devils advocate, since I am a hetero myself, but the point is still valid..

    The last time I checked the US constitution was based on equality not on productivity..
    What you are suggesting is to change the constitution..

    My argument is that banning gay mariages goes agaist the priciple of the constitution i.e. equality..[/QUOTE][QUOTE=ToolkiT]

    This assumes that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are inherently equal.

    I acknolwedge the commonality, but am not clear on the equality.

    Commonality includes: 2 consenting adults, stability, personal commitment, mutual social support, shared financial resources

    However, heterosexual relationships have the added dimension (benefit? burden?) of procreation -- the much needed life-blood of the social security system if nothing else
  19. #19  
    However, heterosexual relationships have the added dimension (benefit? burden?) of procreation -- the much needed life-blood of the social security system if nothing else
    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.
  20. #20  
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shopharim
    I don't find "What's the harm" as a good rationale for acting? The more meaningful question is "What's the good"?
    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?

    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.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions