[TheForce.net]
» Jedi Council Forums
» JC Community
» The Senate Floor
Register
|
Login
|
Search
|
Help
|
New Boards
|
Harassment Policy
|
Rules of the JC
|
TOS
|
Markup Codes
Locked Topic
|
Read Only Topic
|
Previous Active Topic
|
Next Active Topic
Pages:
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
«
69
|
70
|
71
|
72
|
73
|
74
|
75
|
76
|
77
|
78
»
-
Previous
|
Next
|
Reload
Author
Topic:
What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Mr44
Title:
Manager Emeritus
Registered:
May '02
Date Posted:
1/16/04 3:32pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
However, marriage is not the only governmental program that is unequal.
Because, "unequal" does not automatically mean "discrimination."
It is unequal for a reason:
Just like the voting age is unequal, just like the drinking age is unequal, just like the driving requirements are unequal, just like veterans benefits are unequal, just like any one of hundreds of governmental requirements are unequal.
However, because there is no show on tv right now called "
Young eye for the driving guy,"
the horrible practice of driver's license discrimination is ignored.
-----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:
1/16/04 3:41pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Mr44
: Homosexuality is not a joke, and you should not treat it as such.
Homosexuals cannot help being homosexual, and no harm will come to society if they get the equitable treatment they are asking for--
that
is why their request is getting attention, not because of any sort of fad.
Now, for your other government discrimination points:
1. Driving. If we give a license to someone who can't see, hear, reach the steering wheel, or have the cognitive ability to learn how to drive, then we are endangering other people on the road.
2. Drinking. I could start a whole new thread on this one. A person needs to be old enough to understand the effects alcohol can have, otherwise he/she endangers him/herself as well as the rest of society. That is why we have a drinking age. However, we do not arbitrarily tell people with blue eyes that they cannot buy alcohol.
3. Voting. This requires maturity, as in being old enough to understand how the system works and the importance of choosing your candidate wisely. Otherwise we might have Eminem for President.
4. Veterans benefits. The discrimination here isn't arbitrary. People have the choice to join the military. People don't have a choice about being homosexual. If people choose to join the military, they receive veterans' benefits (yes, there are some arbitrary discrimination practices in the military, but I think all of them are unfair). If they choose not to, then they don't receive them. But it is their choice.
Name any other government "discriminatory practices", and I'm sure that I can show you that the discrimination is not arbitrary--that a group is not being allowed certain privileges because it would be harmful to society to do so. Allowing homosexuals to marry their partners is
not
harmful to society.
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
womberty
Registered:
Jan '02
Date Posted:
1/16/04 3:48pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
-
Date Edited:
1/16/04 3:49pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
womberty
So ... let me get this straight. The Supreme Court's
Brown
decision struck down "separate but equal" by saying separate was inherently unequal, but only in the realm of public education?
So "separate but equal" in other realms - such as transportation, drinking fountains, etc., is still acceptable?
I will concede that, if current marriage laws are discrimination based on gender, so is the separating of men's and women's public restrooms. Perhaps that's yet another incentive to take marriage out of government before the court has to rule on its discriminatory nature.
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 3:52pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Well, as I've said before, I would much rather just take marriage out of the government's hands and call mine and my husband's union a "civil union" rather than put arbitrary labels on what marriage
has
to be.
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Mr44
Title:
Manager Emeritus
Registered:
May '02
Date Posted:
1/16/04 4:12pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Isn't
civil union
an arbitrary label in its own right?
Although at least we are reaching some common ground.
If marriage is socially accepted as a bond between man and woman, why can there not be other forms of government recognition?
Cook County, Illinois has this under it's domestic partner regestry, although it is only vaild in Cook County.
Vermont, ditto.
The Military has something similar for "other dependents."
If practical benefits are what people want, and there are other means to get these benefits, why does everyone have to be included in the definition of marriage simply to be fair?
-----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:
1/16/04 4:19pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Why shouldn't it be?
The reason I think it should be is because by not including homosexuals in the definition of marriage, you are insinuating that their union is not deserving of the same label that heterosexual unions deserve--that their unions are somehow inferior.
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Mr44
Title:
Manager Emeritus
Registered:
May '02
Date Posted:
1/16/04 5:23pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
-
Date Edited:
1/16/04 5:28pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
Mr44
you are insinuating that their union is not deserving of the same label that heterosexual unions deserve--that their unions are somehow inferior.
No, you are insinuating a percieved inferiority, when no such condition exists.
For example, a husband, by definition, is not a wife, and vice versa.
However, husbands and wives should join in an equal partnership, even if they are categorically different.
Clearly, a pairing of a man and a man, for example, is fundamentally different than a pairing of a man and a woman.
However, both pairings can exist simulataneously, even if they are not mutually inclusive.
However, the simple act of the government defining marriage does not imply that all other pairings are inferior, or that such alternate pairings cannot exist, merely that they do not meet the same requirements.
Society is diverse enough to include differing social definitions, without knocking down one category because it lacks universal inclusiveness.
-----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:
1/16/04 5:24pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
But
why
does the government require that the pairing be a man and a woman?
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Aunecah_Skywalker
Registered:
Mar '02
Date Posted:
1/16/04 6:04pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
I vowed to stay out of this pointless discussion, but I have the backbone weaker than that of a jellyfish. Here goes:
No, you are insinuating a percieved inferiority, when no such condition exists.
For example, a husband, by definition, is not a wife, and vice versa.
However, husbands and wives should join in an equal partnership, even if they are categorically different.
Clearly, a pairing of a man and a man, for example, is fundamentally different than a pairing of a man and a woman.
However, both pairings can exist simulataneously, even if they are not mutually inclusive.
However, the simple act of the government defining marriage does not imply that all other pairings are inferior, or that such alternate pairings cannot exist, merely that they do not meet the same requirements.
Society is diverse enough to include differing social definitions, without knocking down one category because it lacks universal inclusiveness.
Actually, a chair can be blue chair, black chair, gray chair, yellow chair, or even pink chair. A coat can have twenty different characteristics - it can be long, short, it can be a button-up coat or a zip-up coat, it can have a hood, etc. But that doesn't mean that we call a blue coat Buccoat, a black coat Thinksomethingweird, etc.
We call a table a table and a chair a chair, even though both of them have four legs, because there is reasonable difference between them - that is, a table is meant for putting things on, a chair is meant for sitting, etc.
On the same token, you can call same-sex marriages something different than hetrosexual marriage if there is a reasonable difference between them. As far as I can see, there's no reasonable difference to name them as two different things - yes, we have two men or two women marrying instead of a man and a woman, but I have both a zip-up coat and a button-up coat and yet call both of them coats.
So, this is what I propose: somebody convince me why same-sex marriages should be called something different than bisexual marriages (keeping in mind all the perceived - possibly/probably negative - "reactions"/thoughts to such naming).
Aunecah
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 6:39pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
-
Date Edited:
1/16/04 6:41pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
anakin_girl
For example, a husband, by definition, is not a wife, and vice versa.
A husband and a wife are both married people. The only difference in their definitions are that of gender.
Men and women are not so fundamentally different that a man cannot fulfill a partnership role with another man where a woman would fill said role if the other man were heterosexual.
Gender roles don't apply anymore. My husband cleans house better than I do. He is more nurturing than I am. Up until recently I made more money than he did. This isn't the 50s.
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
DarthYama
Registered:
May '01
Date Posted:
1/16/04 8:59pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
I called race abstract. Male and female may be considered abstract, but it is less abstract than race, as both male and female have definte aspects. That still doesn't mean love will always work under any sort of physical laws.
-----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:
1/16/04 9:02pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Males and females have different genitalia and a few other very minor differences (females are smaller and have more body fat, for instance).
None
if these differences constitute a good enough reason to forbid homosexuals from marrying their partners.
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
Date Posted:
1/16/04 9:04pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
-
Date Edited:
1/16/04 9:06pm
(1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth Mischievous
There are a LOT more differences between males and females than our genitalia,
a_g
. There are psyhcological, emotional, and psychosocial differences notwithstanding the obvious substantial physical differences.
Burying your head in the sand out of PCness won't change the facts.
-----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
DarthYama
Registered:
May '01
Date Posted:
1/16/04 9:06pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
My point exactly. Most reasons for only certain types of marraige stem from religion and/or traditional beliefs.
-----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:
1/16/04 9:08pm
Subject:
RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
There are a LOT more differences between males and females than our genitalia, a_g. There are psyhcological, emotional, and psychosocial differences notwithstanding the obvious substantial physical differences.
Care to explain?
-----signature-----
Room 225, the Geriatric Ward
Alternate ending to ROTS:
"Chancellor, you're full of crap. This opera sucks. I'm going home to my wife."
Locked Topic
|
Active Topic Notification
|
Private Message
|
Post History
Pages:
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
«
69
|
70
|
71
|
72
|
73
|
74
|
75
|
76
|
77
|
78
»
-
Previous
|
Next
|
Reload
[TheForce.net]
» Jedi Council Forums
» JC Community
» The Senate Floor
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64211) 0.515