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

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

« 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 » - 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 12:55pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 12:56pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	Racial diversity in higher public education. Diversity of contracts for public bids. Public health. There is nearly some form of discrimination in a vast amount of every facet of government programs or recognition. Any time a criteria is developed by the State to further a goal it may have, there almost always is someone who may not fit that criteria by virtue of sex, gender, race, age, etc. Surely you recognize this? -----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 12:56pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What "positive and productive goals" are met by keeping a group or groups of people oppressed? Now you are getting hysterical, no one is being oppressed. As many here have already pointed out marriage is something that by definition is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals are not being oppressed just becaus homosexual relationships fails to 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 1:01pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Homosexuals are not being oppressed just becaus homosexual relationships fails to meat the criteria for marriage. What? They most certainly are! They are unable to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex (if they could, they would be heterosexual), therefore they will not want to marry someone of the opposite sex. (At least I hope not--I am not a promoter of loveless token marriages.) Therefore they cannot have the benefits of marriage with a loved partner, simply due to their sexual orientation, which they cannot help. Racial diversity in higher public education. Diversity of contracts for public bids. Public health. There is nearly some form of discrimination in a vast amount of every facet of government programs or recognition. Any time a criteria is developed by the State to further a goal it may have, there almost always is someone who may not fit that criteria by virtue of sex, gender, race, age, etc. And it's wrong. It is always wrong to discriminate based on race, color, gender, or sexual orientation. -----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 1:12pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What? They most certainly are! They are unable to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex (if they could, they would be heterosexual), therefore they will not want to marry someone of the opposite sex. (At least I hope not--I am not a promoter of loveless token marriages.) Therefore they cannot have the benefits of marriage with a loved partner, simply due to their sexual orientation, which they cannot help. But preventing a homosexual couple engaging in what is by definition an act between a hetrosexual couple is not oppressing them. They are not being denied any liberties they just cannot get married because they simply do not meat the fundamental 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
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/19/04 1:25pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 1:30pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	a_g... "And it's wrong. It is always wrong to discriminate based on race, color, gender, or sexual orientation." Surely, you recognize how extreme this view is. We'd be left with a society where large amounts of people are disenfranchised, no or very few blacks in college, or in the position to be awarded tax dollars in public contracts. We'd have 5-year-olds driving cars, because age discrimination and no social security because age restrictions for receiving benefits would be gone. Our society is not generally one of absolutes, a_g. And where it is, it has been careful to limit such absolutes, so absurd, unworkable situations do not commonly occur. -----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 1:33pm 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. Please cite the "compelling reason" in this case. Bear in mind that the Massachusetts Supreme court asked the same of the legislature, to which they have yet to reply. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/19/04 1:43pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 1:46pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	Cheveyo... "Please cite the "compelling reason" in this case. Bear in mind that the Massachusetts Supreme court asked the same of the legislature, to which they have yet to reply." I am not in a position to speak for the Massachusetts legislature. What I am in a position to speak on is your continued misinformation on the subject of the legality of discrimination. If the reality was as you stated, then the Courts would not be engaging in word games of suggesting one thing ("it's okay as long as you have a good reason") but meaning an entirely different one ("it is not okay") as you purport, they would simply say just as you have "Discrimination is illegal." They have not done that. What they have done is say, "discrimination is perfectly fine as long as you have a good reason for it." The fact that Massachusetts is not operating on your preferred timetable doesn't change 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
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/19/04 1:50pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 1:53pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Is your above post indicative of your inability to cite a compelling reason? Were you not the one who just posted that discrimination is okay, given a compelling reason? I happen to agree with you, and am asking what that compelling reason is to deny same-sex marriages. 5-yr-olds with driver's licenses: illegal due to lack of experience and danger to others. "no or very few blacks in college..." I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. You are saying that be eliminating discrimination, more people would be discriminated against? Cite a government program that discriminates against gender, age, race/nationality, or sexual orientation wherein the "compelling reason" for said discrimination is not the potential harm to the individual, to others, or to property. -----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 1:59pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	and am asking what that compelling reason is to deny same-sex marriages. The damage that this would inflict on the institute of marriage which is the cornerstone of society. -----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
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/19/04 2:02pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 2:11pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	Cheveyo... "Is your above post indicative of your inability to cite a compelling reason?" No, numerous possible ones have already been given in this thread. Since you've ignored them the other 87 times they've been posted, I have no faith that you'd somehow decide to accept such citation. "5-yr-olds with driver's licenses: illegal due to lack of experience and danger to others." Lack of experience? We can start training at 3 in preschool. "Danger to others?" That's a rather broad claim, and one that people have used to describe homosexuals, I might add. ""no or very few blacks in college..." I'm not sure I understand the reasoning here. You are saying that be eliminating discrimination, more people would be discriminated against?" Yes, by making completely color-blind admissions standards and removing the discrimination against whites, the level of diversity will plummet and huge numbers of minorities will be disenfranchised from higher education. As diversity is a compelling reason for higher education, discrimination based on race is allowed. Diversity achieved. But, that sucks if you happen to be the one who wasn't able to get in because of your race. Your needs have been sacrificed for "he good of society." If you need further information on this issue, check out the University of California Bakke case or the more recent "University of Michigan" cases (Gratz vs. Bollinger). -----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 2:04pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	The damage that this would inflict on the institute of marriage which is the cornerstone of society. And what damage would that be, exactly? What are the characteristics of said suggested damages? -----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 2:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Genghis: Yes, by making completely color-blind admissions standards and removing the discrimination against whites, the level of diversity will plummet and huge numbers of minorities will be disenfranchised from higher education. If I were black, I would find this comment highly insulting. (In fact, even as a white woman, I find it insulting.) You are suggesting that blacks aren't able to go to college on their own merits--only because of affirmative action.) Lack of experience? We can start training at 3 in preschool. "Danger to others?" That's a rather broad claim, and one that people have used to describe homosexuals, I might add. The claim that homosexuals are dangerous is stupid and can't be backed up by any reasonable claim. (And don't say AIDS--lesbian sex is the safest form of sex where that is concerned.) However, not being able to drive because you can't see over the steering wheel is a pretty substantial claim of danger. No, numerous possible ones have already been given in this thread. Since you've ignored them the other 87 times they've been posted, I have no faith that you'd somehow decide to accept such citation. That's right, because neither "tradition" (which has been used to justify keeping blacks and women oppressed for centuries) nor "the ability to reproduce" (which would nullify my own marriage along with countless others) are compelling reasons. I haven't seen anyone produce another reason. -----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 2:19pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 2:36pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Lack of experience? We can start training at 3 in preschool. "Danger to others?" That's a rather broad claim, and one that people have used to describe homosexuals, I might add. How many 3-yr-olds do you know that can comprehend (and commit to practical memory) the required data needed to be a licensed driver? As to your latter statement, that "argument" has dwindled through time, as no one has come forward citing that they have been harmed by homosexuality. Yes, by making completely color-blind admissions standards and removing the discrimination against whites, the level of diversity will plummet and huge numbers of minorities will be disenfranchised from higher education. As diversity is a compelling reason for higher education, discrimination based on race is allowed. Diversity achieved. But, that sucks if you happen to be the one who wasn't able to get in because of your race. Your needs have been sacrificed for "he good of society." This statement rings of a jaded individual experience. I take from this that you believe strongly in affirmative action. EDIT: No, numerous possible ones have already been given in this thread. Since you've ignored them the other 87 times they've been posted, I have no faith that you'd somehow decide to accept such citation. Not true. Were you, or anyone else, to show me an unpredjudiced, "compelling reason", perhaps outlining the harm allegedly done to individuals, society, or to property, then I am willing to wager that not only will I agree that same-sex marriages are bad, but also the Supreme Court will likely strike down previous rulings, as they say they will if given "compelling reasons". -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Genghis12 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: Nov '99	Date Posted: 1/19/04 2:24pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/19/04 2:49pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Genghis12
	a_g, Cheveyo... "You are suggesting that blacks aren't able to go to college on their own merits--only because of affirmative action..." No, what I'm suggesting is the practical end result that has already been found to exist throughout the country. There would effectively be no black doctors who would be admitted to the University of California Medical School. There would effectively be no black lawyers going through the University of Michigan Law School. That's what Bakke and University of Michigan were about. That's not remotely suggesting that blacks wouldn't get into school on their own merits at all. It is saying that because of generations of institutional discrimination against them, we've already seen that not enough would get admitted for society's taste. This is the fundamental basis of all manner of "affirmative action" programs which the State is involved in. You have heard of "affirmative action" before, right? Cheveyo... "How many 3-yr-olds do you know that can comprehend (and commit to practical memory) the required data needed to be a licensed driver?" If one exists would you still agree that he shouldn't be allowed to obtain a driver's license? How about 10-year-olds? Fourteen-year-old? They're allowed to operate farm equipment in rural areas of some states. Why not cars? Obviously the required data is at least similar. -----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 2:45pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Can he see over the steering wheel and still reach the pedals? That's one hell of a tall three-year-old. You have heard of "affirmative action" before, right? Considering we both mentioned it by name in our previous posts, I would say so. However, I think it's insulting to blacks and women to admit them to programs because of their race or gender rather than because of their merits. -----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

« 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 » - Previous | Next | Reload