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

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

« 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/19/04 11:43am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Cheveyo... "Please expound." Well, I know that seemingly there exists a requirement of absolutism for posting in this thread. But, divorcing oneself away from that absurd notion is the fac that in case you didn't know, "love" comes in many different forms. Suggesting that "in love" and "love" constitute two radically different aspects of a feeling is ridiculous. It is entirely a semantic argument, because unless you wish to get into a semantic argument about semantic arguments, that's exactly the definition of what a semantic argument is. Is asking to expound, you are asking a similar question of why "blue" is "blue" or why "water" is "wet." -----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
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/19/04 11:48am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 11:50am (2 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Being unfair does not make something wrong. True enough; however, discriminating against an indivdual(s) based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation has been deemed wrong by the laws of our society. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/19/04 11:57am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What Cheveyo said. Arbitrary discrimination--discrimination for no reason other than simple bias against someone for their sexual orientation, race, or gender--is always wrong. Genghis: The problem I have with your arguments is that you are completely ignoring the reasons the majority of people choose for getting married in the 21st century and are basing your arguments on technicalities that don't work when placed in the frame of social reality. -----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
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:01pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	True enough; however, discriminating against an indivdual(s) based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation has been deemed wrong by the laws of our society. But if you accept the basis that marriage is something that can only take place between a man and a woman you are not advocating discrimination by oposing gay marriage which obviously does not meat the criteria for marriage. -----signature----- The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:10pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	That definition was added during the early 90s specifically for the purpose of forbidding homosexuals from marrying their partners. So no, I don't accept it, nor will I. It is a discriminatory practice. -----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
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:19pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 12:22pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	But if you accept the basis that marriage is something that can only take place between a man and a woman you are not advocating discrimination by oposing gay marriage which obviously does not meat the criteria for marriage. Indeed, this is the heart of the debate, that being, "Why must marriage only be between a man and woman?" There is no harm to indivuduals or society to warrant this discrimination. There is no social benefit that warrants this discrimination. Those who are so adament about denying same-sex marriages (by deny, I mean the act of disallowing a gay couple the ability to acquire a marriage license, and therefor a lawful marriage certificate required to recognize a marriage as legal) cannot indicate how this will harm, interfere, or otherwise retard their life both socially and familially. So why the (relatively new) distinction that marriage is between one man and one woman? Is asking to expound, you are asking a similar question of why "blue" is "blue" or why "water" is "wet." If I were asking you why blue is blue, or why water is wet, then I would agree with you; however this is not what I asked. I asked you to expound on your belief that the meaning of "love" and the meaning of "being in love" vary in semantics only, so that I might better understand why you think there is no relevant, discernable difference between the two. Those individuals who have had the pleasure of falling in love will know the difference between the two. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:20pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	That definition was added during the early 90s specifically for the purpose of forbidding homosexuals from marrying their partners. Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that marriage is something that can only take place between a man and a woman has only been around from the 1990's onwards -----signature----- The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:24pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Are you seriously suggesting that the idea that marriage is something that can only take place between a man and a woman has only been around from the 1990's onwards? Legally speaking, this is the case. Marriage was not redefined in law as a union between a man and a woman until the Defense of Marriage Act; however, your point is noted that the discrimination was carried out illegally prior to that. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:26pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	It may have been around, but it wasn't spoken--just as it was unspoken that a man had a right to rape his wife, that the government had the right to make blacks sit in the back of the bus, and that a husband had the right to make his wife ask permission before signing any sort of legal document. These unspoken rules were wrong, and so is the current one regarding the "definition" of marriage. The only reason it has become spoken within the past decade is to make it easier to forbid homosexual couples from marrying. Those who are so adament about denying same-sex marriages (by deny, I mean the act of disallowing a gay couple the ability to acquire a marriage license, and therefor a lawful marriage certificate required to recognize a marriage as legal) cannot indicate how this will harm, interfere, or otherwise retard their life both socially and familially. Exactly--and if no one is harmed, it should be legal. -----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
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:32pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Legally speaking, this is the case. Marriage was not redefined in law as a union between a man and a woman until the Defense of Marriage Act; however, your point is noted that the discrimination was carried out illegally prior to that. Technically, it was not redefined as being between a man and a woman, but was calirfied as others tried to twist laws to have a new meaning. As I showed earlier in this thread, the definition of marriage in the English Language has it being between a man and a woman. To have the laws specify this would be redundant, as it was plainly understood. As people seek to redefine the meaning of the word marriage, it is not inappropriate to change the law to reflect its original meaning rather than the adapted one. It is like the Constitution. There are those who seek to interpret the language of the Constitution using the 21st Century definitions of the words. However, to do so is to effectively rewrite the laws of our nation. Instead it is something that should be judged by the language of the time it was written. In the same way, many laws (for example copyright laws) have been clarified in recent years in order to preserve their original intent, despite newer uses of terms (or new technologies). 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: 1/19/04 12:33pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Cheveyo... "True enough; however, discriminating against an indivdual(s) based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation has been deemed wrong by the laws of our society." Not true. Just discrimination aginst individuals based on race, gender, age or sexual orientation without a compelling reason has been deemed wrong by the laws of our society. On the most relevent of those elements to marriage - gender - the only form of gender discrimination that is outright illegal in all forms under all circumstances is infringing upon the right to vote. Any other form of gender discrimination is perfectly legal, given a compelling reason. -----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
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:35pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	It may have been around, but it wasn't spoken--just as it was unspoken that a man had a right to rape his wife, This is another preposterous arguement. It was hardly an unspoken rule, it was reguarded as a simple fact that marriage was something between a man and a woman. Rape on the other hand was and is a criminal offense. -----signature----- The UK Independance Party - http://www.ukip.org The Freedom Association - http://www.tfa.net Better Off Out - http://www.betteroffout.co.uk Say NO2ID and the database state - http://www.no2id.net/
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:37pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Any other form of gender discrimination is perfectly legal, given a compelling reason. I won't argue that gender discrimination is rampant in today's society, although there are others who would argue that men and women are treated equally. But that's a topic for another thread. However--any and all gender discrimination is wrong, as well as any and all discrimination based on sexual orientation. This includes forbidding homosexuals to join the military as well as forbidding homosexuals from marrying a partner 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
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/19/04 12:45pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	a_g... The State has not agreed with you, nor will in the near future. There are "required" forms of discrimination that the government has and will sanction based on all of the criteria you provided to fulfill positive and productive goals of society. Such common issues are school diversity, etc. Your absolute "my way or the highway" view is unworkable in a diverse society. -----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: 1/19/04 12:47pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	There are "required" forms of discrimination that the government has and will sanction based on all of the criteria you provided to fulfill positive and productive goals of society. What "positive and productive goals" are met by keeping a group or groups of people oppressed? -----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

« 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 » - Previous | Next | Reload