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

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

« 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 1/20/04 11:33am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	So what? You are still treating infertile couples, no matter why they are infertile, as if they are somehow inferior or their marriages are somehow inferior, or weird. No I am not. I repeat this assertion for you one last time. A marriage is no less valid or complete because the couple involved do not have children. Interpretation, and it doesn't take much of a stretch here: marriages without children are abnormal and should not be rewarded by society. That interpretation of my views is simply incorrect and ignores some of the points that I have made. Once again I will repeat myself for your benefit. Most marriages produce children and because in most cases this is the best way for raising children it benefits society. Therefore it right for society to reward marriage. That some married couples do not have children does not take away from this. The difference between married couples that do not have children and homosexual couples is that the no homosexual couple can ever produce children. -----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: 1/20/04 11:37am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Most marriages produce children and because in most cases this is the best way for raising children it benefits society. Therefore it right for society to reward marriage. Only because it usually produces children? That's rather prejudicial, not to mention unfair. With six billion people in the world, we should not be rewarding people for having children. The difference between married couples that do not have children and homosexual couples is that the no homosexual couple can ever produce children. Again--so what? In some heterosexual situations, the couple can never produce children--couples who marry when the woman has had a hysterectomy or is past menopause, for example. -----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: 1/20/04 11:45am Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 11:50am (1 edits total) Edited By: womberty
	Not entirely honest. What many (if not all) of "you" are trying to do is call this a square, or perhaps a "round square," regardless of whatever answers people give you as "why." Take the word "marriage" (and thus its social definition) out of the argument, and you do pretty much have what I described above. The government has decided that a particular union of two people offers some societal benefits that are compelling enough for it to endorse and promote that union (or at least, that is the claim). The commonplace (and highly religious) institution of marriage is a convenient embodiment of this union, so the government decided to just adapt that as the union it would endorse and promote. Analogy: The government likes squares. Now, some people start to question why the government has decided to endorse and promote marriage. What are the compelling causes? Well, marriage provides stability for both members; it (supposedly) keeps them from promiscuity and fulfills some needs that both have for partnership. Analogy: The government likes squares because they have four straight sides. Marriage is also a stabilizing societal force. The government endorsement encourages people to seek marriage, and promotes stable families as a result. A married couple provides a stable environment for raising children. Analogy: The government likes squares because they have four right angles. Now, the only thing that most people claim is a part of "marriage" that a homosexual couple can't provide is procreation. Analogy: The government likes squares because their sides are all equal length. But then, if we try to show you how that homosexual couples meet the first two sets of criteria, you say that we're trying to redefine marriage. Analogy: Rectangles have four straight sides and four right angles, but the government doesn't care because "they don't meet the definition of a square." The point is, it shouldn't turn into an argument over the definition of the word - if that's the problem, that's exactly why "marriage" should be taken out of the government. We're not talking about the definition, but about the concept of the union between two people, and the reasons the government supports that union. If homosexual unions can provide the same societal benefits, why not include them? The government already doesn't care if some people don't provide all of the benefits it claims marriage provides. Analogy: The government is accepting some shapes that aren't technically squares! So why does it exclude homosexual couples, when they're as beneficial to society as infertile heterosexual couples? EDIT: A marriage is no less valid or complete because the couple involved do not have children. Replace "do not" with "can not." Will you still make the same assertion? The difference between married couples that do not have children and homosexual couples is that the no homosexual couple can ever produce children. And what is the difference between married couples who cannot have children and homosexual couples? Just that one looks like it could produce children, even if it's really impossible?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/20/04 1:04pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 1:06pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	First, I must comment that womberty's square analogy is the perfect explanation as to why we are asking why. Second: It seems to me that you are now more concerned about cutting and pasting the same statements over and over again, than remaining interested in any real discussion. I must note that genghis set the precedent for continually repeating questions. Those examples you listed as evidence of "lawful discrimination without causing harm" were shown in fact not to be discriminatory. Given that, I have re-submitted the challenges to: cite the "compelling reason" to deny same-sex couples the ability to marry? 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. I would also like to re-examine these questions: Based on biological inability to conceive and bear children, would you advocate denying marriage to homosexual couples? Based on biological inability to conceive and bear children, would you advocate denying marriage to heterosexual couples? -----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: 1/20/04 1:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Based on biological inability to conceive and bear children, would you advocate denying marriage to heterosexual couples? I guarantee you someone will answer, "No, because that infertility can be fixed." It all seems to come down to a priority of having children. Again, I don't think this is something the government should reward. -----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: 1/20/04 1:24pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	lawful discrimination without causing harm" were shown in fact not to be discriminatory. Indicated by you to be non-discriminatory, not by any substance. If it was that simple, haven't many people already claimed that marriage regualtion is non-discriminatory? Using your rationale, that should settle it. What I mean, using the square example, is that you dismiss outright differing views from your own. Many people consider tradition, religion, procreation, minimizing special interest, as all compelling reasons, even if you don't. That's why I say you are looking for a reason that only you know about. You might as well ask, what is in my pocket? So what can we possibly tell you? The fact is that DOMA is the law in the US, 70% of all the states define marriage using a specific criteria, other international bodies define it using similar crieria. And guess what? They all cite the same, or similar compelling reasons. Not one regulation lists anything remotely like "childless marriages are evil," or "homosexuals are bad." They are not prohibiting a practice, simply defining one, which is no different than any of the hundreds of other programs that exist. -----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
Not George Lucas Registered: Oct '98	Date Posted: 1/20/04 1:24pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	My wife and I have been legally married over 8 years. We are incapable of having children. Even if we could, we wouldn't. Is our marriage less valid than that of my friends with two kids? Should we be required to have our marriage anulled because of our inability to produce children? The "most married couples" argument does not apply to me. How is my marriage any different from a gay marriage, aside from the gender difference? -----signature----- Read => Comprehend => Post Intelligence comes not from the accumulation of knowledge, but from the application of it. Tao called Tao is not Tao. http://www.fuffyt.tk
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/20/04 1:31pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 1:36pm (1 edits total) Edited By: anakin_girl
	Not George Lucas: I could kiss you right now. My husband and I have been married ten years. We are in the same situation--I have endometriosis and polycystic ovaries. I am looking at the possibility of having to have my left ovary removed within the next few months. Technically I can have children, but it would be very very difficult, and quite frankly it's not worth the trouble. I like kids, but I don't understand why people go to so many extremes for parenthood. It is for this reason that my blood really boils when people define marriage as "the institution in which to raise children". I find it insulting. Mr44: Many people consider tradition, religion, procreation, minimizing special interest, as all compelling reasons, even if you don't. And I can refute every last one of those reasons, but people ignore my refutes. -----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: 1/20/04 1:41pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Sorry, but as I pointed out to you AG, pages back (and we agreed), I have been married for almost 8 years myself. My wife and I choose not to have children either. However, our individual exceptions/situations/beliefs do not define the overall institution of marriage. The government does not force every married couple to engage any specific behavior, nor does it force any non-married couples either. It merely defines the simplest criteria for the insitution that it is promoting. Otherwise, every example of "Uncle Joe down the street" would have to be legislated, and this would be impossible. -----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
womberty Registered: Jan '02	Date Posted: 1/20/04 1:44pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	What I mean, using the square example, is that you dismiss outright differing views from your own. Actually, what I seem to be hearing more often, is that "That's just the socially accepted definition of marriage", rather than an explanation of why the government should be promoting that specific social institution. Many people consider tradition, religion, procreation, minimizing special interest, as all compelling reasons, even if you don't. Religion cannot be used as a compelling reason for a government program. In fact, anything that promotes a religious interest must have a compelling secular reason in order for the government to offer it. Tradition is generally struck down when it comes to discrimination based on race or gender. Why should it hold up here? "Minimizing special interest"? What are you talking about, in regards to marriage? Is this just an example of soreness about the "special interest" of homosexual rights that have overturned other traditional legislation (such as laws against sodomy), or did you have something else in mind? And as for procreation - marriage today does not seem to be particularly promoting procreation (considering how many people marry after getting pregnant, or who choose not to have children), and marriage is not limited to those who can procreate. If this is a "compelling reason" to offer marriage to heterosexual couples, why isn't it limited to those who have children, or who are able to have children? If the government tries to supply a "compelling reason" for promoting something, and it can be shown that the way the government has structured the program, the "compelling reason" is not being served, or that there is discrimination beyond that "compelling reason", don't you agree that the program would have to be changed to fit that "compelling reason"?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
anakin_girl Title: Founding Member & Retired FF CR Charlotte , NC Registered: Oct '00	Date Posted: 1/20/04 1:45pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	It merely defines the simplest criteria for the insitution that it is promoting. But it isn't doing that. It is adding criteria it does not need to add. If it were defining the simplest criteria, it would say "Two people who love each other and wish to legally form a family." (And if you want to bring up the polygamy example, mark out the "two". I wouldn't engage in polygamy but I really don't care if other people do. I can see how the government wouldn't like it, however, for inheritance reasons.) -----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: 1/20/04 1:59pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Two people who love each other and wish to legally form a family." But why add love in there? Isn't that unfair to practical people? And why have wish in there? some people still support arranged marriages. And why have legal? Some laws aren't just. And why have form in there? That implies that individualism is reduced. And why have family? Some people prefer "personal economic merger." So basically, to be completely fair in the PC world run amock: Marriage=People Everyone can be married to everyone, it's the only way 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: 1/20/04 2:08pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	But why add love in there? Isn't that unfair to practical people? So don't--I don't care. And why have wish in there? some people still support arranged marriages. Because that is forcing someone into a situation against his or her will. You might as well legalize rape. And why have legal? Some laws aren't just. So change the ones that aren't. And why have form in there? That implies that individualism is reduced. Ummm, no, it doesn't. Better yet--why get married if you don't want to form a family? And why have family? Some people prefer "personal economic merger." Because families have advantages that "personal economic mergers" don't. Other than that I don't care. Call it a "personal economic merger". -----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
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/20/04 2:10pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Indicated by you to be non-discriminatory, not by any substance. If my comments are insubstantial, why do you reply to them? Just a thought. That's why I say you are looking for a reason that only you know about. You might as well ask, what is in my pocket? So what can we possibly tell you? You have established at great length that you believe in denying same-sex marriage and permitting discrimination. Our question now is establishing "Why?" Thus far, the reasons that have been given are self-contradictory or evasive answers, circling the question "Why?", but not addressing it. They are not prohibiting a practice, simply defining one, which is no different than any of the hundreds of other programs that exist. And, like the Massachusetts Supreme Court, we are asking why there it is defined as such. Without a valid reason, the courts are saying it is wrong. Thus far, no one in the legal circles and conclusively say why it is defined as such without acknowledging discrimination of one type of family or another. the most recent rehashing in this thread of double-standards revolves around the biological ability to conceive. Everyone here says that heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of bearing children are and should be allowed to marry. True or False. Some here say that homosexual couples who are biologically incapable of bearing children are and should be allowed to marry. True or False. The only difference between these two statements is the gender of the couple. The alleged issue is that the inability to bear children restricts marriage from homosexual couples. Were this the actual issue, then neither types of couples above would be allowed to marry. This leads us to believe that Child bearing is not the real issue, but in fact an ill-practicing scapegoat (ill-practicing because the scapegoat itself raises issues of discrimination against hetero couples who cannot conceive). The questions are still out there, but the answers aren't making any sense. -----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: 1/20/04 2:13pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	This leads us to believe that Child bearing is not the real issue, but in fact an ill-practicing scapegoat (ill-practicing because the scapegoat itself raises issues of discrimination against hetero couples who cannot conceive). No kidding. (Still resentful of the discrimination.) -----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

« 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 » - Previous | Next | Reload