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

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

« 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/20/04 2:14pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Mr44: Many people consider tradition, religion, procreation, minimizing special interest, as all compelling reasons, even if you don't. A_G: And I can refute every last one of those reasons, but people ignore my refutes. More importantly, the state courts (who have thus far heard such cases) have established that tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are invalid arguments to lawfully disriminate. when it gets there, the Federal Supreme Court will concur. -----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: 1/20/04 2:18pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Cheveyo... "More importantly, the state courts (who have thus far heard such cases) have established that tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are invalid arguments to lawfully disriminate. when it gets there, the Federal Supreme Court will concur." Well, we have important and more important, but most importantly, the legislature and executive (who have thus far dealt with such cases) have established that tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are entirely valid arguments to lawfully disriminate. Amd when it gets there, they may force the Federal Supreme Court via a Constitutional Amendment to concur. -----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: 1/20/04 2:23pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Well, if they're going to establish "tradition" and "religion" as valid reasons to discriminate, they might as well institute a Reverend So-and-So as President and amend the Constitution to make everyone go to church every Sunday. If we're taking steps towards theocracy, why not go all the way. More importantly, the state courts (who have thus far heard such cases) have established that tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are invalid arguments to lawfully disriminate. when it gets there, the Federal Supreme Court will concur. I hope so. If they'd get out of the 19th century and stop encouraging procreation or insinuating that procreating is better than not procreating, we'll really be caught up with other less puritanical nations. -----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 2:26pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 2:26pm (1 edits total) Edited By: womberty
	legislature and executive (who have thus far dealt with such cases) have established that tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are entirely valid arguments to lawfully disriminate. Amd when it gets there, they may force the Federal Supreme Court via a Constitutional Amendment to concur. Listen to yourself for a moment: You want discrimination based on religion? What would you like, a tax deduction for Bible purchases, or perhaps a bonus for baptism? You want discrimination based on tradition? That's what a lot of people wanted in their voting laws and public education system; how is what you're advocating any different?
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/20/04 2:44pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	Because you fail to operate in any realm but the extremes. The concept of marriage is not a specifcally religious tradition, even if it is supported by it. A Hindu man and woman can be get married, a Buddist man and woman can still get married, a LDS man and woman can still get married, a Muslim man and woman can still get married, a Wiccan man and woman can still get married, a Greek Orthodox man and woman can still get married, a 7th Day Advantist man and woman can still get married, and so on.. But yet, in your world, somehow supporting a specific defition of marriage equals tax subsidies for Bible purchases, and a complete theocratic take-over of the country? Where has anyone remotely made this leap? Put aside your own personal biases and look at the issue from the middle ground. It is you who are introducing artifically narrow concepts into the debate, and then assuming that everyone shares those views and biases. This isn't the case. No rights are being violated here, unless you are claiming that marriage is a right which is guarenteed somewhere. The issue here shouldn't be about religion, or sexual lifestyle, or discrimination. It is about the government being able to define a specific institution that is supported by society. -----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
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/20/04 2:45pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 2:50pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Well, we have important and more important, but most importantly, the legislature and executive (who have thus far dealt with such cases) have established that tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are entirely valid arguments to lawfully disriminate. Amd when it gets there, they may force the Federal Supreme Court via a Constitutional Amendment to concur. Actually, as we learned in high school, the three branches of government are equal in importance, not "important, more important, and most important". Thus we have a system of "Checks and Balances". Were a law to be passed by the legislative branch, and it were to be argued before the judical branch as discriminatory, it can be found unconstitional in that it unduly denies rights and freedoms to a citizen(s), and the law can be struck down. The legislative branch can seek to add a constitutional amendment, and they are welcom to try. It is a difficult process, and I doubt they would hold the votes needed to do it. Event hen, it can later be thrown out with a new ammendment repealing it. In the meantime, no amendment exists, and the questions I've posed remain... unanswered. EDIT: Mr44, can you answer my other questions: 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 not be allowed to marry. True or False Please explain why. -----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 2:48pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	The issue here shouldn't be about religion, or sexual lifestyle, or discrimination. It is about the government being able to define a specific institution that is supported by society. In which case, let's not define the specific institution based on anyone's religious or traditional preferences or biases towards people who procreate. -----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 3:05pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 3:06pm (1 edits total) Edited By: womberty
	But yet, in your world, somehow supporting a specific defition of marriage equals tax subsidies for Bible purchases, and a complete theocratic take-over of the country? Look at the statement to which I was responding: "tradition, religion (especially), and minimizing special interest are entirely valid arguments to lawfully disriminate." That means, "Tradition is a valid argument to lawfully dicriminate" and "Religion is a valid argument to lawfully dicriminate" and "Minimizing special interest is a valid argument to lawfully dicriminate." I'm pretty sure the first two have been ruled unconstitutional in one case or another, and I don't even understand how "minimizing special interest" applies to the case of marriage (or whether it is, indeed, a valid reason to discriminate). Obviously, if there was an amendment to the U.S. Constitution saying that any type of discrimination is okay, the constitutionality argument would be moot - but do you really think it's okay to discriminate because of tradition or religion? It is you who are introducing artifically narrow concepts into the debate, and then assuming that everyone shares those views and biases. Actually, I am trying to apply certain principles - something many conservatives claim to favor right up to the point where those principles invalidate something else they liked.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/20/04 3:15pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 3:17pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Mr44
	Mr44, can you answer my other questions: Sure.. 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 Because sexual practices/beliefs aside, this society has deemed the combined influences of a mother and a father as optimal for raising children. Under the corresponding defintion of marriage, a man and woman are biologically set up to have children.(Propigating the species/society/nation and all that.) That is simply the baseline criteria, because the government cannot regulate every single variation thereof, and for practical reasons, it has no desire to do so. This is not saying that any other variation is less desireable, etc.. For example, a childless husband and wife who adopt, would still approximate the original biological influences found in nature, while raising their child, and so on.. This has nothing to do with sexuality, or religion, or emotion. Those are individual concepts, and the government does not regulate individuality, as it falls outside of its scope of operations Two heterosexual men, such as from "My Two Dads," or the "Odd Couple" or two heterosexual women from "Kate and Allie," who raise a child together would not recieve benefits either, and sexuality has no place in those relationships. Simply put, marriage regulation is the baseline. It in itself, makes no judgements or prohibitions on any behavior that falls outside of it. Gay men or divorced women, or Hippie Communes can still practice what they want, they just don't recieve offical recognition. Now, can you tell me what I am holding in MY hand? -----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 3:17pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	But why should the baseline criteria have anything to do with raising children? It should have to do with the desire to form a family, nothing more. As I've said, this isn't 1850. We don't need to be encouraging people to procreate. -----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
DarthKarde Registered: Jun '02	Date Posted: 1/20/04 3:42pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of 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 fact that marriage usually produces children is not prejudicial it is simply fact and we are not rewarding people for having children we are rewarding people for creating an enviorenment where children will be brought up in the best way. As for rewarding people for having children, that is completely different subject. I do not know about the US but most western countries including the UK offer some form of child benefit regardless of the marital status of the parents. 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. If I didn't know better I would have to assume that were so stupid that cannot grasp this simple point that I have made time and time again, since I know that is not the case I have to assume that you are willfully interpreting the point as something different to what I am saying. I will try again to explain this to you. While some hetrosexual couples are incapable of producing children for various reasons the vast majority can. No homosexual couple can ever produce children. There is a clear difference between the two situations. I guarantee you someone will answer, "No, because that infertility can be fixed. I certainly will not answer in such a way since it is a blatantly false statement. -----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 3:47pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	The fact that marriage usually produces children is not prejudicial it is simply fact and we are not rewarding people for having children we are rewarding people for creating an enviorenment where children will be brought up in the best way. But why should that be the purpose of giving marriage benefits? By giving benefits to marriage because marriage is the ideal place to raise children, the law is essentially saying that the reason to marry is to raise children. As far as tax benefits for children, I have mixed feelings. I don't believe in rewarding people for reproducing themselves, however, I do believe in helping people take care of the children they have, and anyone who has another child just to get the tax benefit needs a math class. The tax benefit nowhere near covers the cost of child-rearing. Topic for another thread though. While some hetrosexual couples are incapable of producing children for various reasons the vast majority can. No homosexual couple can ever produce children. There is a clear difference between the two situations. But why does it matter? -----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 3:48pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 3:58pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	Because sexual practices/beliefs aside, this society has deemed the combined influences of a mother and a father as optimal for raising children. Based on what proven data? And does optimal deny all other forms? Optimal does not equal only. Under the corresponding defintion of marriage, a man and woman are biologically set up to have children. Accept when they are not. You have already helped to establish that childbearing is not a requirement of marriage; therefor, how can this biological reason still be used against one group, while other groups (heterosexual couples who cannot, and heterosexual couples who will not) are protected. For example, a childless husband and wife who adopt, would still approximate the original biological influences found in nature, while raising their child, and so on.. - And yet they do not procreate. - And yet the law permits single-parent homosexuals to adopt. This, too, is an already established invalid argument because society has already agreed that homosexuals are allowed to and fully capable of adopting and raising children. So why can't they marry? Two heterosexual men, such as from "My Two Dads," or the "Odd Couple" or two heterosexual women from "Kate and Allie," who raise a child together would not recieve benefits either, and sexuality has no place in those relationships. Never a good idea to show as evidenciary examples fictional situation comedies. You'll also note by the popularity of these shows that these cases are socially acceptable. As they are socially acceptable, do you then believe--per your previous argument of social rule--that it would be ok for "My Two Dads" or "Kate and Allie" to marry for the benefit of the children? If I remember the stories correctly, love between the adults didn't play into the situation, but--as you say--marriage isn't about love. Simply put, marriage regulation is the baseline. That serves what purpose? Do you believe heterosexual couples (married or not) will stop procreating if gay marriage is recognized? Do you believe that allowing gays (people who cannot bear children whether they are married or not) to marry will somehow cause those people who can bear children to become oddly incapable? Show the harm. The people who can and do bear children will continue to bear children. We are talking about those who are not capable of having a completely dual-genetic link to children (although the practice of surrogate parenting does allow for at least a partial gentic link). This works for both heterosexual couples unable to conceive AND homosexual couples who are unable to conceive. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Cheveyo Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 1/20/04 3:50pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage. - Date Edited: 1/20/04 3:52pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Cheveyo
	The fact that marriage usually produces children is not prejudicial it is simply fact and we are not rewarding people for having children we are rewarding people for creating an enviorenment where children will be brought up in the best way. Supply evidence that proves that heterosexual marriage (not even coupling) is the best, and therefor the ONLY, environment to raise a child. The courts, by the way, have already ruled against this. I do not know about the US but most western countries including the UK offer some form of child benefit regardless of the marital status of the parents. And yet no rights are bestowed upon the other parent, because they cannot be married. -----signature----- I am a Founding Father. Want to know more? Just ask.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Mr44 Title: Manager Emeritus Registered: May '02	Date Posted: 1/20/04 3:57pm Subject: RE: The perfect solution towards the defense of marriage: Abolish the institution of marriage.
	So again, what do I have in my hand Chev? What exactly are you looking for? I still have no idea. Is it simply that you want to "win" on the internet? Fine, I'll bite..You win Society is wrong, you are right.. Upon closer examination, it seems like this whole marriage thing was simply pulled out of a hat. You have convinced me that it obviously serves no purpose what-so-ever. Maybe now we can all go get pie or something.. -----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

« 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 » - Previous | Next | Reload