Jedi Council Forums - What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:33pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:34pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	That's what marriage is for, but people have so perverted the meaning of marriage is that it's currently in shambles in a great percentage of the population due to SELFISH self-interests and the lack of understanding of what marriage really is. If you marry and can't have children, well that's unfortunate, but you can adopt and raise children in the only natural way they are designed to be raised - by a man and a woman. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:37pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:41pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	But what if I don't want to? Not all of us consider lack of ability to procreate "unfortunate". That is not what marriage is for, and to say that marriage without children is "perverse" is insulting to those of us who are married and don't have children. It is also insulting that you consider us "selfish". Marriage is for the purpose of forming a family based on love, and there are all types of families. Some have children in them, some don't. The US Supreme Court would not agree with your assessment that they've used some "perverse 'technical' logic" In which case the U.S. Supreme Court is cold and heartless and doesn't give a rat's ass about the "pursuit of happiness", not for some of its citizens anyway. I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court is comprised entirely of heterosexuals. I would love to tell each of them, "You can marry anyone you want to--but it has to be someone of the same sex." I will keep reiterating because you are not going to convince me otherwise: Homosexuals are being denied the privilege that heterosexuals have: the privilege of being able to marry the partner of their choice. The partner of their choice will not be someone of the opposite sex. People who oppose homosexual marriage know this, but they really don't care whether or not these people are happy, even though allowing them to form a happy marriage with their partners would cause no harm to anyone else. Maybe they won't add to the overpopulation of the world by having children--but I'm not either. I suppose I shouldn't be married. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:39pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:43pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	That is not what marriage is for Wrong again. See Merriam-Websters: 1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family Don't feign ignorance based upon well-intentioned feelings. If you think marriage is simply only about love than you have the wrong idea of what marriage is. Marriage is a lot more than that (more than just feelings). It is for the foundation and maintaining of a family, and is the cornerstone of society. Now, we have secularists demanding change of what marriage is - as secularism has wrought great change in marriage today. The evidence is plainly clear - people act out of selfishness and not what marriage was intended for. So, the divorce rate is astronomical and people base their lives upon a 'feeling' of love instead of real committment for founding a family and raising the next generation. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:41pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:44pm (2 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	Are you saying I shouldn't be married, DM? Are you saying that I am supposed to have children? I saw nowhere in that Webster's definition any mention of children. "Family" has a lot of different definitions. It doesn't have to include relegating the woman to the role of sprog-popping. If you think marriage is simply about love, than you have the wrong idea of what marriage is. Marriage is a LOT more than that. Unless I'm mistaken, you aren't married. I've been married ten years. You have no business telling me what marriage is or isn't about. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kessel Runner Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Apr '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:42pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Heterosexual relationships are the ONLY natural way to propogate the species - and marriage is the civil contract for the foundation and the maintaining of a family. Therefore, simply stated, heterosexual relationships are inherently superior. OK, well you're arguing with a social construct of marriage that has not entirely been true for decades. 1,000's of kids are born each year out of wedlock. And they are no discriminated against because of it. To say that the only legitimate way to have children is through marriage is just not true anymore. And homosexual couples (i.e. same-sex couples) can have children through adoption, artificial insemination, etc. Thus, the child still has two parents, if not more. And I agree wholeheartedly with a_g in regards to this discussion of marriage in terms of child-rearing. Until recently I was engaged to a woman I loved deeply. She was physically incapable of having children because of a severe car accident she survived when she was 15. I knew this. She knew this. By your argument, we should never have been allowed to wed because we were incapable of having children. And, Genghis, as far as your discussion of Brown V. Board of Education. Let's just say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal, but they are being denied equal rights, thus, under Brown V. Board of Education, the separate but equal clause does not hold water. Therefore, they must be granted the same rights as heterosexual couples. -----signature----- Proud Father of My Precious Little Girl Eliza Joy Born 11:50 PM 3/8/08 6 pounds 12 ounces 18 inches of Love
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:46pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:48pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	Out-of-wedlock births are not the ideal way to have chidlren, and this really isn't in dispute and is quite irrelevant. Kids are born out of wedlock because these individuals are irresponsible - another aspect of the secularistic intrusion on family values. What your well-intentioned secularistic viewpoints fail to grasp is that their is no equality to begin with in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Marriage is not a right, or an entitlement - and you want to change what it is to suit your ideology. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:48pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	I see you ignored my question. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:50pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 2:56pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	a_g... "Homosexuals are being denied the privilege that heterosexuals have: the privilege of being able to marry the partner of their choice." I don't have that privilege. My partner of choice would be Natalie Portman. Given that she is: 1) not directly related to me 2) not married (neither am I) 3) of age (as am I) 4) a woman (I am a man) Are you suggesting I can walk into my local justice of the peace and get married to her? Kessel_Runner... "Let's just say..." Given that homosexuals have the equal right to marry, let's not "just say." Or if we're "just saying," then "let's just say they're not being discriminated against," and they're not being discriminated against, right? -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:51pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Which also goes back to the fact that marriage recognition is simply the baseline criteria. No one HAS to get married, straight, gay, man, woman, white, black, or martian. In fact, anyone who wants to love whomever they want, how they want, is certainly free to do so. Love might be called a universal right, but marriage is certainly not. Realizing this, the government doesn't regulate emotions, it regulates standards. And here is the key- because no one is denied a practice. Simply claiming that universal inclusion is the only fair route, completely ignores the entire make-up of our society. As such, the government recognizes the most universally accepted and naturally efficient means to categorize the family structure. As has been pointed out before, there is always going to be exceptions. Not everyone is able to have children, sometimes people marry for financial reasons, Uncle Joe down the street may hate kids, etc..etc.. into infinity. However, the government will never be able to take every potential marriage on a case by case basis, so it simply sets the universal standards. Just because there is a marriage standard, does not mean anyone else is prohibited from having the relationship they want. -----signature----- When you enter a room full of armed men, shoot the first person who makes a move- hostile or otherwise He has started to think and is therefore dangerous... -- Colonel "Paddy" Mayne, co-founder of the SAS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:51pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Marriage is for the foundation and maintaining of a family, and heterosexual marriage is the only natural and is the best way to raise children. It is this that is the cornerstone of society - with the breakdown of the family, we have seen the decandent and morally bankrupt secularistic rise in entertainment culture, violence, et cetera. I also once dated a girl in my early to mid 20's who couldn't have children - she had cancer and almost died. I'm not ignorant on this matter. -----signature----- "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who are not." --Thomas Jefferson
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kessel Runner Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Apr '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:54pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What your well-intentioned secularistic viewpoints fail to grasp is that their is no equality to begin with in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Since, as you seem to have caught, I am a secularist, can you give me any reason that does not involve religion why heterosexuals and homosexuals are not equal? And, again the child bearing issue has been done to death here, and really has no place in this discussion so please forego it. -----signature----- Proud Father of My Precious Little Girl Eliza Joy Born 11:50 PM 3/8/08 6 pounds 12 ounces 18 inches of Love
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 2:55pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Genghis: If Natalie Portman also chooses to marry you, then yes. If Rich wants to marry John but John doesn't want to marry Rich, then Rich can't marry John. However, if Rich wants to marry John and John wants to marry Rich, then Rich should be able to marry John. However, the way the laws are set up now, he can't. But, if Rich wanted to marry Jane, he could do so. There's a difference, and I'm sure you see it. DM: Would you have married that girl anyway, if you felt she was the one for you? What if she didn't want to adopt children? -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 3:02pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	A-g... That is agreement that a heterosexual man does not have the privilege of marrying the partner of his choice. -----signature----- ========== Intelligently Fitting The newer EU into Established Star Wars Continuity (Or How About a No-Prize) http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1111146 "Envy the nations that have heroes. Pity the ones that need them." -- Van Zan
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kessel Runner Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Apr '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 3:12pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	I found this, which I find interesting in this discussion: Map of the US broken down by religion And Genghis, you are splitting hairs and you know it. To argue your point by going after semantics is dodging the issue. All marriage requires the consent of TWO adults, that is why we don't let kids get married, and somebody always has the opportunity to say NO. What is in question here, is what kind of limitations are there on those TWO adults. -----signature----- Proud Father of My Precious Little Girl Eliza Joy Born 11:50 PM 3/8/08 6 pounds 12 ounces 18 inches of Love
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 3:14pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 3:15pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	Genghis: KR is right. You're nitpicking technicalities. A heterosexual man can marry the partner of his choice if she agrees to the marriage. A homosexual man cannot marry the partner of his choice even if the partner agrees to the marriage. Therefore, they are not equal. -----signature----- "A person should not believe in an -ism, a person should believe in himself." Ferris Bueller
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 » - Previous | Next | Reload