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
« 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 » - Previous | Next | Reload
Author Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Fire_Ice_Death  19951 posts
Registered: Feb '01
Date Posted: 12/8/03 7:05pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 7:09pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Fire_Ice_Death
You said that all I've offered are arguments based "solely on a religous sense of morality and antagonism towards homosexuality."

And you point to this statement as proof?

So, even if I didn't mean that statement to be antagonistic, that statement makes your claim true that I've offered nothing else?

It makes it true that that’s the perception you’re giving. I never said that that’s what you’re doing, but if you’re tired of people misconstruing your points, then try your best to avoid giving that perception.

Ludicrous.

Whatever you say, but saying one thing and doing the other isn’t going to help you any.

And at any rate, it's not antagonistic; it's the truth.

Please do not assume to speak for all of us when you say it’s the truth. I’d be disgusted to abide by your truth.

Marriage is defined as a covenant between a husband and his wife, between a man and a woman.

Only in religious circles; which again doesn’t invalidate the perception that you’re basing this on your religious views.

Because there's no requirement that either party be heterosexual, there is nothing preventing a homosexual from marrying, as long as that person is marrying a member of the opposite sex.

You know…if I wanted to kill brain cells, I’d go out and get piss drunk. Instead I read arguments like these.

 

-----signature-----
A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?
An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him? - Terry Pratchett
i.hada.field.AD
But now that I'm older, My heart's colder, And I can see that it's a lie...
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 12/8/03 7:07pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 7:08pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Bubba_the_Genius
[no message]

 

-----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
Singularity  456 posts
Registered: Apr '02
14776_Yoda
Date Posted: 12/8/03 7:09pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
because it has a unique role in society, namely the role of encouraging biological parents to take care of their children.

Can you reference any legal support for this contrived notion? Marriage is a civil contract. Homosexuals have a right to this civil contract. Explain why they should be denied this right - if you're able.

 

-----signature-----
I have decided to no longer participate in this forum due to the arbitrary and capricious nature
with which the administration applies its rules. I wish you all the best.
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
anakin_girl  14978 posts
Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR
Charlotte , NC
 Registered: Oct '00
48285_Good Morning Galaxy
Date Posted: 12/8/03 7:22pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Or do dictionaries forty years ago mention "same-sex marriage"?

Yeah, I'd hate to ask how books written 40 years ago defined the role of the female in the home, or the role of the African-American versus the Caucasian in society. plain

 

-----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
anakin_girl  14978 posts
Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR
Charlotte , NC
 Registered: Oct '00
48285_Good Morning Galaxy
Date Posted: 12/8/03 7:29pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
The fact that such terms have been recently introduced proves my point: "marriage" has been historically understood to be heterosexual.

And women have been "historically understood" to be baby-making machines and housewives.

Why? Because even a gay man can marry; he just has to marry a woman to do so.

And it's considered fair that you get to marry the person you love, but a homosexual does not?

How many times must I mention the fact that reproduction is why I think heterosexual couples are unique?

So my husband and I shouldn't have married?

One thing I don't get is why the government should promote childbirth to begin with?

No kidding. In fact, I get rather insulted when I hear marriage defined as "the institution in which to raise children"--as if I'm some sort of freak. plain

 

-----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
Obi-Wan McCartney  8597 posts
Registered: Aug '99
13616_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 12/8/03 7:38pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 7:45pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Obi-Wan McCartney
The point is the UNNECCESSARY EXCLUSION, and the religous view that marriage is only between a man and a women, means to me, that if the government wants to satisfy religous sanctity and provide equal rights, the approach is to neutrally distance itself from the term marraige, and creates its OWN secular institution, which isn't restricted by solely religous morality. - Obi-Wan McCartney

This is the point that you conveniently ignored.

EVEN IF I accept your definition of what the secular purpose of marriage is, you haven't provided ANY clear reasoning for EXCLUDING gays because of it. The biological stuff is like a guideline or a philosophy, it isn't a requirement.

Now, I know that the volume has gone up between you and Singularity and Fire, but I have to agree with them on a few points:

1. Since you haven't given any explanation on why gays should be EXCLUDED from marriage, I can see where Fire is coming from. Even if we accept your definition of what marriage is for, you admit that marriage is not LIMITED to providing those benefits, there are OTHER benefits to the state and to the people getting married other than reproduction. Point is, like I said, if you don't exclude straights, regardless of their intentions, why exclude gays, when even they can satisfy the states goals in raising children?

2. This may not be fair, but your deep religous beliefs imply what direction you are coming from, as Singular alluded to. Since you haven't justified why gays should be excluded, we are left to infer from what limited knowledge we have of you why you are objecting.

Most of your points only go one way, why marriage is beneficial to the state. They don't address why gay marriage is harmful to the state, or even why they might be harmful to religion. I mean, Satanists are allowed to get married, seems to me like Satanists existing is far worse than gay marriage.

 

-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 12/8/03 8:32pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Singularity:

Can you reference any legal support for this contrived notion? Marriage is a civil contract. Homosexuals have a right to this civil contract. Explain why they should be denied this right - if you're able.

At this point, I don't care who I offend; I'll ask it again.

What's preventing a homosexual man from marrying a woman? Nothing at all.

Marriage is a civil contract, defined as being between a man and a woman. And homosexuals have not been denied a right to that particular contract.

In most states, homosexuals can't get a license for a civil union for the homosexual equivalent of a marriage. That's wrong, but why not create a contract for such unions instead of bastardizing the word "marriage"?


anakin_girl:

Yeah, I'd hate to ask how books written 40 years ago defined the role of the female in the home, or the role of the African-American versus the Caucasian in society. plain

I doubt that many dictionaries covered either subject.


And women have been "historically understood" to be baby-making machines and housewives.

I'd love to see the dictionary that says that.


And it's considered fair that you get to marry the person you love, but a homosexual does not?

If a homosexual desires spending his life with the man he loves, and that desire is reciprocated, those desires should be fulfilled.

But it's not marriage. The term does not fit.


"How many times must I mention the fact that reproduction is why I think heterosexual couples are unique?"

So my husband and I shouldn't have married?

I don't think that at all; the totality of my posts in this thread reveal that.


In fact, I get rather insulted when I hear marriage defined as "the institution in which to raise children"--as if I'm some sort of freak. plain

Marriage is, I think, the institution in which children should be raised, insofar as it is possible.

But "children should be raised from within a marriage" does not mean that "all marriages must have children within them."

All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.


McCartney:

EVEN IF I accept your definition of what the secular purpose of marriage is, you haven't provided ANY clear reasoning for EXCLUDING gays because of it. The biological stuff is like a guideline or a philosophy, it isn't a requirement.

If you wanted to sanction the arrangement that results in children -- i.e., a man and a woman -- how does it help to sanction other arrangements?

Tell ya what, you haven't given ANY clear reasoning for believing that the 14th Amendment extends the Establishment Clause to the states, a question I asked about much earlier than the question you've posed to me. Answer mine, I'll answer yours.

 

-----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
Fire_Ice_Death  19951 posts
Registered: Feb '01
Date Posted: 12/8/03 8:42pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 8:45pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Fire_Ice_Death
At this point, I don't care who I offend; I'll ask it again.

What's preventing a homosexual man from marrying a woman? Nothing at all.

laugh That's nice, but it defeats the whole purpose as to why homosexuals wish to get married in the first place.


In most states, homosexuals can't get a license for a civil union for the homosexual equivalent of a marriage. That's wrong, but why not create a contract for such unions instead of bastardizing the word "marriage"?


Because there's no real difference? Oh yeah, and because not every religion is opposed to allowing gays to marry. Just the big three (as far as I know). And *gasp* Some of the churches within those big three make exceptions...how horrid, huh?

 

-----signature-----
A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?
An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him? - Terry Pratchett
i.hada.field.AD
But now that I'm older, My heart's colder, And I can see that it's a lie...
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 12/8/03 8:44pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
May I offer a theory?

The desire of extending the word "marriage" to homosexuals has less to do with legal rights (since other civil contracts could do the same thing) and more -- much more -- to do with social approval.

It's not legal freedom; it's social sanction.

Homosexuals and their militant advocacy groups not only want to be free to do what they want -- let's be honest, in this country they already are free -- they want to be free from any sort of criticism.

That's understandable, but it's not something the courts should force on this country. It won't accomplish the desired goals; polls already suggest a good deal of backlash over the decision in Massachusetts.

Just as important, it's not something the courts should do. The SCOTUS doesn't have the authority since marriage laws as now written are, in fact, permitted by the Constitution.

The Constitutionality is the issue I care more about, to be completely honest.

 

-----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
Fire_Ice_Death  19951 posts
Registered: Feb '01
Date Posted: 12/8/03 8:47pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 8:50pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Fire_Ice_Death
And what's wrong with social acceptance? Women, irish, black people, etc. have been striving for that for ages. The Irish were heavily persecuted by most Americans in the 1800's. Same with blacks and women. So why is this an exception?


That's understandable, but it's not something the courts should force on this country. It won't accomplish the desired goals; polls already suggest a good deal of backlash over the decision in Massachusetts.

Polls are nice, but they hardly reflect each and every American. wink

Force has always been a way of achieving equality in the US, this is not any different.

 

-----signature-----
A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?
An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him? - Terry Pratchett
i.hada.field.AD
But now that I'm older, My heart's colder, And I can see that it's a lie...
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Obi-Wan McCartney  8597 posts
Registered: Aug '99
13616_Obi-Wan Kenobi
Date Posted: 12/8/03 9:02pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
Bubba, it's not really within the scope of this thread, that's like asking me to justify why we should follow the Constitution, why we should follow the law, why the State Constitutions should govern state laws. I believe I've given my explanation to you in PM'S, and I will continue the discussion in PM, or in another thread, but it's not relevant in this thread as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, I'm happy to discuss it with you further.

If you wanted to sanction the arrangement that results in children -- i.e., a man and a woman -- how does it help to sanction other arrangements?

Homosexual unions can produce children. Furthermore, your reasoning would be ok if procreation was the ONLY reason for marriage, but it's not. Continuing to dodge the question in every thread doesn't help your credibility. Sicne gays can produce and rear children, and even if they didn't, how does it HURT marriage?

How does it even 'bastardize' the secular notion of marriage? It doesn't, it only impugnes your religous sensibilities, be honest. That's the whole reason you want the incorporation discussion too, you want a legal way to justify the use of a religously restricted legal definition.

And as for the constitutionality of marriage, the fact is, it's becoming an issue in many states, this is a very currrent legal issue that will be decided over the course of the next decade or so, (whereas incorporation is settled law.)

You don't really have a secular argument for limiting marriage. The reproduction argument is quite flimsy, and as I have already demonstrated, would not permit the EXCLUSION of gays. Even under your definition, gays can help produce and rear children, so it benefits marriage. There is no benefit to EXCLUDING them.


 

-----signature-----
God Bless J-Rod's Wife!
Obi-Wan McCartney: Model Forum Member since 1999!
America's Beatles are far better than England's precious Rolling Stones
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 12/8/03 9:04pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 9:09pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Bubba_the_Genius
And what's wrong with social acceptance? Women, irish, black people, etc. have been striving for that for ages. The Irish were heavily persecuted by most Americans in the 1800's. Same with blacks and women. So why is this an exception?

You do know how change was brought about, right? Constitutional amendment. For blacks, look at the 15th Amendment; for women, there's the 19th Amendment. That is, Congress and two-thirds of the states agreed to these sweeping and necessary changes.

What I don't understand is why you think this should be an exception in terms of the process, why the courts should shove changes down our throats that used to require an actual amendment.


EDIT:

McCartney, your PM explanations have been less than satisfying. Pointing to legal precedent doesn't exactly explain how it is the 14th Amendment extends the Establishment Clause to the states.

Homosexuals cannot produce children without help from someone of the opposite sex. Or how am I wrong on this point?


How does it even 'bastardize' the secular notion of marriage?

Simple: for every state in the union, "marriage" means exclusively heterosexual.


That's the whole reason you want the incorporation discussion too, you want a legal way to justify the use of a religously restricted legal definition.

Um... when did I bring up incorporation?

 

-----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
Fire_Ice_Death  19951 posts
Registered: Feb '01
Date Posted: 12/8/03 9:06pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 12/8/03 9:07pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Fire_Ice_Death
You do know how change was brought about, right? Constitutional amendment. For blacks, look at the 15th Amendment; for women, there's the 19th Amendment. That is, Congress and two-thirds of the states agreed to these sweeping and necessary changes.


You do know that without pressure that change wouldn't have been made, right? wink


What I don't understand is why you think this should be an exception in terms of the process, why the courts should shove changes down our throats that used to require an actual amendment.

Because congress no longer serves the will of the people, but what they think is politically expedient?

 

-----signature-----
A European says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?
An American says: I can't understand this, what's wrong with him? - Terry Pratchett
i.hada.field.AD
But now that I'm older, My heart's colder, And I can see that it's a lie...
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
womberty  3669 posts
Registered: Jan '02
Date Posted: 12/8/03 9:11pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
The legal sanction of marriage encourages that the most children possible are raised by both their biological parents.

Is it your argument that this is the reason the government first got involved in regulating marriage, or just that this is the only reason you can think of to defend its continued involvement in the institution of marriage?


Tell me, when the government issues a marriage license, who's rights are being damaged?

I said equal rights; some people are not getting the same rights.


Marriage licenses do not infringe on religious freedom or equal protection.

Or can you explain how I'm wrong?

Well, for one thing, the government's restriction of marriage infringes on the religious freedoms of those who wish to practice polygamy.

It also infringes on, or at least blurs the lines of, equal protection because some individuals get privileges denied to others. Some people are allowed to marry men; others are not. Some people are allowed to refrain from testimony against the people to whom they are closest; others are not.


There is at least one good reason to promote biological parents raising their own children: Because they brought the child into this world, it should be their responsibility to take care of the child.

But even now, children are born out of wedlock, and their biological parents are still required to take responsibility for them. Considering that, plus the evidence that government-regulated marriage has a high failure rate, how can you continue to claim that marriage is the best way to encourage the best environment for raising children?


I'd love to see the dictionary that says that.

How about the one that first introduces the idea of marriage?

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife"

"and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply"

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord."

...you get the idea.


The desire of extending the word "marriage" to homosexuals has less to do with legal rights (since other civil contracts could do the same thing) and more -- much more -- to do with social approval.

I disagree. There are already religious organizations willing to offer homosexuals "marriage", but they cannot extend along with the ceremony all of the legal rights enjoyed by couples "married" in the eyes of the church.


why not create a contract for such unions instead of bastardizing the word "marriage"?

Tell me, when a writer uses the terms "marry" and "marriage" in a metaphorical sense, does that also bastardize the word "marriage"?

"This Ethan Allen furniture collection is the marriage of elegance and Caribbean soul" - that doesn't offend you, but the wrong kind of couple claiming to be "married" does?

 
Locked Topic | Active Topic Notification | Private Message | Post History
Bubba_the_Genius  4835 posts
Registered: Mar '02
23560_Qui-Gon and Anakin
Date Posted: 12/8/03 9:12pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
You do know that without pressure that change wouldn't have been made, right? wink

Not from the courts, it didn't. Back then, they still had a vague notion that their job was to interpret law, not rewrite it.


Because congress no longer serves the will of the people, but what they think is politically expedient?

Your solution is to give Congress's job of writing laws to judges who are unelected and who often serve for life?

Because the Supreme Court does serve the will of the people?

 

-----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
« 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 » - Previous | Next | Reload
© 2009 IGN Entertainment, Inc (9.02.17.2300, IGNPRDAPPW64212) 0.547