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

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

« 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 12:39pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Yeah, but think about it: two brides would mean two dresses! They should be for same-sex marriage!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/15/04 12:47pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Not quite true... -----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: 1/15/04 12:48pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	and if that's not a compelling reason, I don't know what is... -----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
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 1:39pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	womberty, anakin_girl is right. The current laws could be called discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation, but not sex or gender. -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 1:44pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Would a law requiring a person to marry a member of the same race be discrimination based on race?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthYama Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 1/15/04 2:37pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Slippery Slope arguments should be banned. I bet the same arguments were used against desegregation and interracial marraige. -----signature----- I am the snow that burns I fall whereever men send me to fall - but I prefer flesh, so smooth, so dense: I decorate it in black and seek the bone
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/15/04 3:09pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 3:20pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	You have not shown what the compelling reason to grant homosexuals wishing to enter into a same-sex union special status above and beyond what a homosexual, heterosexual, male or female gets recognition for? Genghis: I will ask you again, and hopefully you will not ignore the question this time: do you believe that marriage should be based on love, or do you believe we should go back to the days of arranged marriage? If you believe that marriage should be based on love--whether or not you think the law can enforce that is irrelevant--then the law should at least provide the opportunity--the same opportunity provided to heterosexuals--for homosexuals to marry the person they love. Bubba; I don't believe it always causes birth defects, nor do we sterilize other people who appear to have a good chance of passing on genetic disorders to their children. We are not -- and should not be -- a nation that engages in eugenics. But, more importantly, this argument runs contrary to your own position that marriage should not take procreation into account. Given that I am not against polygamy or adult incest, it doesn't really matter. I was pointing out to you some reasons that the courts might use to disallow polygamy and adult incest while still allowing homosexual marriage. -----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
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 3:35pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Genghis: I will ask you again, and hopefully you will not ignore the question this time: do you believe that marriage should be based on love, or do you believe we should go back to the days of arranged marriage? Why does it have to be one or the other? Is it so impossible for you to see the middle ground? All the government does is determine the criteria for offical recognition of marriage. it does not legislate intent. Any two people getting married can still base their motivations on whatever they want.. If its love, fine. If it's children, fine. If its financial, fine. You seem to be continually ignoring that fact. The government does not regulate the why, how could it? It simply supports the social institution that brings the greatest benefit to society. That's why this issue is not as cut and dried as you are making it to be. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/15/04 3:39pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	It simply supports the social institution that brings the greatest benefit to society. But if it's going to do that, it needs to go all the way towards bringing the greatest benefit to society. Since loving marriages, not trophy marriages, are best for society, the government needs to allow anyone who loves each other to marry--rather than discriminate against some couples because they have the same genitals. -----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
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 3:58pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 4:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	And how would the government determine that? Impossible. Although I would agree that the societal assumption would be that two people would be in love, or why else would they be making such a commitment? The rationale behind marriage is usually handled by the individual's faith. That's why marriage is not a completely religious institution, but supported by it. And are you suggesting that everyone who is in love when they get married, stays that way? If the feelings change, would the marriage end? If a wife-beater still loves his spouse, even though he has an uncontrollable temper, would she have no recourse? After all, he only beats harder because of his love. Now, anyone should see that the above example is completely absurd. However, that is what happens when oversimplifications creep in. You are basing some of your arguments on completely emotional responses. The government should never determine criteria based on individual feelings, it merely sets the offical criteria. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/15/04 4:02pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	And I have yet to see one good reason...not one, in 42 pages of this thread...for arbitrarily discriminating against a homosexual couple who love each other and who have just as much chance of making their love last as a heterosexual couple facing the decision to marry. -----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
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 4:11pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Maybe not based on love. But the government never based its marriage criteria on any emotional feeling. The marriage requirement is based on valid pragmatic reasons, even if not supported by completely emotional ones. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/15/04 4:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What "valid pragmatic reasons"? -----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
Bubba_the_Genius Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 1/15/04 9:44pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/15/04 9:46pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Bubba_the_Genius
	Would a law requiring a person to marry a member of the same race be discrimination based on race? No; the law may be wrong, but in this case it doesn't strike me as discriminatory. If it required all races to marry within their own race, precisely who does the law discriminate against? Discrimination requires a particular victim (or victim class); it separates (or "discriminates") that victim or class. Such a law doesn't create any separation. Do you want to argue that, under such a law, we're all victims? If we're all victims, it doesn't discriminate, now does it? -----signature----- "It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are." http://bible.crosswalk.com/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthYama Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 1/16/04 9:16am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	It discriminates against people who happen to fall in love with someone not of their own category in an abstract classification system. -----signature----- I am the snow that burns I fall whereever men send me to fall - but I prefer flesh, so smooth, so dense: I decorate it in black and seek the bone
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 » - Previous | Next | Reload