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

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

« 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Darth Mischievous Registered: Oct '99	Date Posted: 1/16/04 9:10pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	You're a teacher, if you don't understand the differences, then I really must question your intellectual honesty. -----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 9:12pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	You're calling me stupid? Women have more body fat, different hormones, different genitalia. And generally they're smaller. What else is different? -----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 9:20pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/16/04 9:22pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Darth Mischievous
	No, I'm not calling you stupid. I question your intellectual honesty in this situation. There are substantial differences between the male and female psychology and emotion notwithstanding psychosocial behaviorisms. Human beings have inherent differences when it comes to the male and female genders. It is this way for the survival of the species. Burying your head in the sand out of a misplaced sense of 'equity' (based on PCness) by inferring that human beings are exactly the same besides our genitalia 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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/16/04 9:27pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	I certainly don't understand what psychological and social differences there would be, other than those imposed by a society that is still trying to oppress women. We have hormones, sure, and they make us crazy once a month. But that doesn't mean that we are different socially or psychologically. -----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: 1/16/04 10:47pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	anakin_girl, let's take your assertion -- that there are no substantial differences between men and women -- to its logical conclusion. If there's no substantial difference, then the preference of one sex over the other (in terms of sexual attraction) is largely superficial. In which case, a homosexual man should have little difficulty finding a woman who he's attracted to, and he can marry her. The entire premise of homosexuality hinges on the idea that men and women are different enough that people are attracted to just one group and not the other. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/17/04 7:31am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	No, it doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with differences between the genders. Think about it--none of us can explain away logically why we are attracted to some people and not others. Homosexuals cannot explain why they are attracted to members of their own gender and not the opposite gender. That doesn't mean that genders are different except for genitalia and a few other minor physical characteristics. You're trying to rationalize something that isn't rational. Ditto with everyone else who is opposed to same-sex marriage. You are assuming that love and attraction are logical emotions--they aren't. If they were, no one in their right mind would fall in love, because no one would make themselves that vulnerable to getting hurt. -----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: 1/17/04 10:09am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Kessel_Runner... "And Genghis, you are splitting hairs and you know it." No, there is no hair-splitting going on. The assertion was that heterosexuals can marry whomever it is they love, yet homosexuals cannot. Even staying away from the fact that love isn't a requirement for marriage, that assertion is false. "To argue your point by going after semantics is dodging the issue." Aaaaah, the same old cry of someone unable to refute the point. That is not semantics. It is stating the fact, the rality of the situtaion. Anyone suggesting otherwise, like a_g, is the one who is dodging the issue. What you so quickly glossed over is the fact that no, heterosexuals may not be able to marry whomever it is they wish to marry in just the same way that a homosexual may not marry whomever it is they wish to marry. "All marriage requires the consent of TWO adults..." Right, but that's just one criteria. In a lot of states, not all marriage requires the consent of TWO adults of differing sexes. If we just bow to the criteria, as you are directing me to do, then this whole discussion/argument goes away. So, you're being a bit hypocritical. You're saying "That's the law, deal with it," yet the exact same excuse can be given back on the matter of same-sex partners. But, regardless of all of that, the fact that you just wish to gloss over is that a_g's point that a heterosexual can marry whomever they wish is false. Which is not a minor point in the accusation that unfairness may exist for homosexuals because heterosexuals can marry whomever they wish. Both are in the same boat on marrying whomever they wish. There are other criteria which may bar both groups from doing that. -----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: 1/17/04 11:40am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/17/04 11:47am (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	You're trying to rationalize something that isn't rational. Ditto with everyone else who is opposed to same-sex marriage. You are assuming that love and attraction are logical emotions--they aren't. This is the direction you are now going? Careful about getting splinters.. Besides, I thought we had already covered this? How about we switch it to this: You're trying to emotionalize something that isn't emotional. You are assuming the offical recognition of marriage requires love, it doesn't. The government has never, nor should it start to regulate emotion. People are free to feel how they want about anyone else. If we were discussing a policy that prevented two people from merely loving each other, you might have a point. However, you are improperly blurring two distinct concepts together. Any two people can be in love without getting married. Conversely, just because two people are married, does not mean that they love each other. Simply put, love is an intangible emotion. Marriage is a social institution. The two compliment each other, but are not required of each other. That would be like you claiming that the government regulates hate, because murder is illegal. -----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: 1/17/04 2:27pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	As I told Genghis, promoting marriages based on love, as opposed to 1850s-style marriages in which the woman's father chose a husband for her, is beneficial to society. Everyone knows that in the 21st century, marriages in Western society are based on love, as they should be. I am not dodging the issue--you are. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love if that person consents. Homosexuals cannot marry the person they love even if that person consents, because due to their nature, the person they love will be of the same sex. Just by ignoring this fact, you are discriminating against homosexuals--just as it would be unfair to you to say "You can marry anyone you want as long as you marry someone of the same sex." -----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: 1/17/04 2:38pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	And as we mentioned to you before, it is not a zero sum game. You don't have to have one or the other. Just because the government does not regulate feelings, does not mean anyone is calling for arranged marriages. I asked you this before, but is it so hard for you to see the middle ground? You are the one who keeps pitching the red herrings, when you continually overgeneralize. -----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
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/17/04 2:38pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Everyone knows that in the 21st century, marriages in Western society are based on love, as they should be. I am not dodging the issue--you are. That's not always true. For example, one person I know (Etta), got married to her latest husband out of a sense of duty and obligation. When her sister passed away about 10 years ago, Etta promised to take care of her husband. However, she did not feel it was proper to have a man who was not her husband living in the same house that she did. When he passed away 4 years ago, they had had a happy marriage. However, it was not originally performed out of love, but duty. Again, the government has not business being involved in the reasons a person gets married. It shouldn't care whether a couple is getting married out of love, duty, or just a desire to have sex (if they believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong). Motivations should never be the realm of the government to control. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/18/04 8:48am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	a_g... "Homosexuals cannot marry the person they love even if that person consents, because due to their nature, the person they love will be of the same sex." So, you're now trying to suggest that homosexuals are incapable of loving someone of the opposite sex. I suppose that according to you, every gay male has an Electra Complex and every lesbian has an Oedipus Complex. Do you really want the government to be in the business of setting recognized standards for "love."Do you want something like this: Federal Standards of Love The following criteria must be fulfilled by both parties for Federal recognition that they be "in love." 1.To be considered "in love," each partner must have spent $247.39 on gifts for their partner within the fiscal tax year, with the amount going up to $253.22 in fiscal year 2005, and a 4.5% increase thereafter. 2. To be considered "in love," each partner must have impugned the cooking ability of their Mother-in-Law's cooking a minimum of twice during the year. 3. To be considered "in love," each party must consent to using a "pet alias" for their significant other on a regular basis to be chosen from the approved listing contained in Federal Document 29000345LUV, as modified by Addeundum LUV-400367 which added the following names "Puggy Wuggy," "Pookems," "Sugar," and "My Little Hummingbird." The assertion that the State should remotely have its fingers in the apparatus of love is ridiculous. After all, you yourself have already suggested that those not conforming to your nice stereotypical definition of homosexual union are "sick as hell." Just because someone may not conform to your idea of love, you're going to label them freaks? Governments' involvement in love as you would have them do would make that far worse, not better. -----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
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/18/04 9:44am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Genghis, there is no need for the rudeness. You know that I wasn't saying that the government should require a test for love, and yet you chose to post that nasty diatribe anyway. If you think homosexuals are capable of falling in love with someone of the opposite sex, let me ask you this: are you capable of falling in love with someone of the same sex? If not, then you should see what I mean. Whether you choose to or not is another matter entirely. Yes, homosexuals are incapable of falling in love with someone of the opposite sex. That is why they are homosexual. If they could fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, they would be heterosexual. I don't know why you think that my belief that any couple who loves each other should be able to get married is somehow criminal. Just because the government does not regulate feelings, does not mean anyone is calling for arranged marriages. I asked you this before, but is it so hard for you to see the middle ground? There is no middle ground here. A heterosexual couple can get married. A couple of the same sex can't, simply because they have matching genitalia. We are not being fair to couples of the same sex. And just because the government can't always be fair doesn't mean it should go out of its way to be unfair, which is exactly what it is doing here. -----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: 1/18/04 10:09am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Yes, homosexuals are incapable of falling in love with someone of the opposite sex. That is why they are homosexual. If they could fall in love with someone of the opposite sex, they would be heterosexual. Really, AG? Wow... I am heterosexual and married, but I love my brother.. Where do I fit into your scheme? Or under your views, does love automatically equal sex? You seem to have an extremely narrow view of relationships that: 1)allow for no deviation from your "norm," 2) which is certainly not shared by the majority of the community. Which you pretty much sum up here: There is no middle ground here. Well, finally, at least you are honest. Because I guess "fair" is always more desireable than "better..." -----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: 1/18/04 5:38pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/18/04 5:41pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	Or under your views, does love automatically equal sex? When love leads to marriage, it certainly does equal sex. At least in normal situations. I'm pretty sure you know this but are just choosing to ignore it. So since you and Genghis insist on ignoring reality in favor of technicalities, I guess I have to spell everything out. Heterosexuals are able, by law, to marry the partners they love in a sexual way and want to commit their lives to. Homosexuals are prohibited, by law, from marrying the partners they love in a sexual way and want to commit their lives to. Sure they are able to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that isn't the point. They are not able to marry their partners. Would you like to twist things any further? Any more, "Well, technically, blah blah blah" statements? -----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

« 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 » - Previous | Next | Reload